Shoot The Breeze

[Shikaka]

This is an interesting argument that right-wingers bring up. The billion (in loan guarantees) was contingent on Ukraine taking a hard line on corruption, including inside the prosecutor's office. When they didn't take the steps that were contingent on getting our loan guarantees, like firing the prosecutor that would NOT investigate the corruption in his office and would NOT investigate Burisma (which had Hunter Biden on it's board) then they were told there weren't getting money. So they fired the guy who was protecting his own corrupt prosecutors and was protecting the CEO of Burisma from a money laundering investigation.

Even after all of this, they still haven't had a sniff of criminality on Hunter Biden's part. If there's one thing you're correct about, its that he never should have been on that board in the first place. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest was bad for America.


Yeah, I've been seeing four. I don't like the idea of continuous escalation though, cause in 4 or 8 years the next guy would probably try to make it 15.

Apparently you saw a period or semicolon somewhere in my statement. The evidence of assumption should not be enough to impeach a sitting president (Trumps retarded ass or not) and nothing ever was revealed as concrete as Trump himself saying it was quid pro quo. Just the assumption of those like Sondland, even Zelensky admitted no quid pro quo.

Hunter Biden is dirty as cumrag Kushner. Plenty to sniff at.

And the majority of this discussion is how pious the Democrat party is, yet the Steele dossier was literally funded by Clinton and the DNC.

Political elites, across the board are dirty fucks, thinking they have the general interest of the population at heart is foolhardy. And I find myself having the same stance on things despite who they affect, unlike people who argue for their party.

 

[Dousand24]

A little off topic here, but we still getting a 1% raise in 2021??

 

[32andBelow]

A little off topic here, but we still getting a 1% raise in 2021??

LOL.

 

[CaptainObvious]

A little off topic here, but we still getting a 1% raise in 2021??

1.6 in june

 

[BigEggplant]

LOL.

Fedweek says probably...

1.6 in june

Does our current contract carry through to this June?

 

[32andBelow]

Does our current contract carry through to this June?

If you vote for Trump your contract is canceled

 

[ehmeye]

Apparently you saw a period or semicolon somewhere in my statement. The evidence of assumption should not be enough to impeach a sitting president (Trumps retarded ass or not) and nothing ever was revealed as concrete as Trump himself saying it was quid pro quo. Just the assumption of those like Sondland, even Zelensky admitted no quid pro quo.

Hunter Biden is dirty as cumrag Kushner. Plenty to sniff at.

And the majority of this discussion is how pious the Democrat party is, yet the Steele dossier was literally funded by Clinton and the DNC.

Political elites, across the board are dirty fucks, thinking they have the general interest of the population at heart is foolhardy. And I find myself having the same stance on things despite who they affect, unlike people who argue for their party.

Sondland was pressed into working with Giuliani at the express direction of the president. No assumption needed. If there had been an actual trial in the Senate, they would have blocked Bolton from testifying. Bolton would have said that the President explicitly declared that he would release the aid when they turn over evidence of Clinton/Biden investigations in a meeting that he attended. But it doesn't matter. That's why the whole situation was a farce. Even if Bolton testified to that and even if Trump went on TV and said "yeah, I did it, go fuck yourself", it would never have gotten to 67 votes. I don't care what Zelensky said, as no leader of ANY nation would say that they got bent over and blackmailed in public. Especially if they wanted the aid to continue.

You seem to be confused as to my contribution to this conversation. Nowhere did I claim that the Democratic Party is pious and Republicans are evil. But there is an honesty gap between the two and that is incontrovertible.

 

[thedude]

The evidence of assumption should not be enough to impeach a sitting president (Trumps retarded ass or not) and nothing ever was revealed as concrete as Trump himself saying it was quid pro quo. Just the assumption of those like Sondland, even Zelensky admitted no quid pro quo.

This sentence made me more stupid.

 

[ehmeye]

Does our current contract carry through to this June?

It's a six year contract, expires in July 2022.

 

[CF]

If you want to see the hypocrisy incarnate just look to McConnells statement saying a trump nominee will get a vote. Claiming voters expanded the republicans majority in 2018 when there was literally 0 chance of anything else happening given the senate map. He’s only giving evidence to people that claim the senate is a relic of the past that should be destroyed. Trump gets a lot of shit for being a moron (which he is) but McConnell might deserve more blame for letting that idiot walk right over the top of him and the Republican Party.

 

[Shikaka]

This sentence made me more stupid.

How so?

 

[32andBelow]

Dems set fundraising records tonight 100,000 dollars a minute. This might be just what we needed

 

[CF]

Dems set fundraising records tonight 100,000 dollars a minute. This might be just what we needed

i donated 100000 KPW to Kim Jong Uns life support gofundme

 

[Shikaka]

Sondland was pressed into working with Giuliani at the express direction of the president. No assumption needed. If there had been an actual trial in the Senate, they would have blocked Bolton from testifying. Bolton would have said that the President explicitly declared that he would release the aid when they turn over evidence of Clinton/Biden investigations in a meeting that he attended. But it doesn't matter. That's why the whole situation was a farce. Even if Bolton testified to that and even if Trump went on TV and said "yeah, I did it, go fuck yourself", it would never have gotten to 67 votes. I don't care what Zelensky said, as no leader of ANY nation would say that they got bent over and blackmailed in public. Especially if they wanted the aid to continue.

Sondland testimony was literally about his assumption that Trump was seeking an investigation in exchange for aid. Fiona testimony stemmed from Sondland assumption.

Trump was never going to be removed, truth to that, yet the Bolton testimony was just a subpoena away at the impeachment hearings and the House wasn't seeking it.

In truth, the entirety of the impeachment was partisan driven and in being so was a sham due to the very nature of what impeachment is for per the constitution.

 

[CF]

Sondland testimony was literally about his assumption that Trump was seeking an investigation in exchange for aid. Fiona testimony stemmed from Sondland assumption.

Trump was never going to be removed, truth to that, yet the Bolton testimony was just a subpoena away at the impeachment hearings and the House wasn't seeking it.

In truth, the entirety of the impeachment was partisan driven and in being so was a sham due to the very nature of what impeachment is for per the constitution.

So since the founders completely and utterly whiffed on the idea of political parties we should scrap all their crappy ideas. I like it.

 

[ehmeye]

Sondland testimony was literally about his assumption that Trump was seeking an investigation in exchange for aid. Fiona testimony stemmed from Sondland assumption.

Trump was never going to be removed, truth to that, yet the Bolton testimony was just a subpoena away at the impeachment hearings and the House wasn't seeking it.

In truth, the entirety of the impeachment was partisan driven and in being so was a sham due to the very nature of what impeachment is for per the constitution.

Bolton threatened to sue to block a House subpoena, said he WOULD comply with one for the trial in the Senate, and Trump said he would use executive privilege to block it. There was never any possibility of Bolton testifying.

Impeachment is a partisan driven process, it has been all three times it was used. It has never been solely about the law and you're right, that is a shame.

 

[Shikaka]

So since the founders completely and utterly whiffed on the idea of political parties we should scrap all their crappy ideas. I like it.

Partisan bantering between parties is the essence and downfall of our politics. The founders weren't anti-party, most of them believed it was naturally associated with democracy. Though party loyalty is where the corruption grows, especially given the congressional divide thats been growing since the fall of the USSR and the hyper-polarizing politics of even the general public.

But yeah, in essence fuck the crappy ideas.

Bolton threatened to sue to block a House subpoena, said he WOULD comply with one for the trial in the Senate, and Trump said he would use executive privilege to block it. There was never any possibility of Bolton testifying.

Impeachment is a partisan driven process, it has been all three times it was used. It has never been solely about the law and you're right, that is a shame.

Literally it just goes to the supreme court and Bolton would have testified, the executive privilege doesn't overule the impeachment proceedings or matters relevant to the investigations. If the Democrats were at all serious about the impeachment they could have opened another article while the first two were in the Senate and subpoenaed Bolton for it. Literally that's what Nixon tried to fight and lost at the Supreme Court. And then McGahn got his shit pushed in.

This was literally the most partisan impeachment there could have been with the exception of a few Democrats. Clinton and Johnson were bipartisan processes, Nixon undoubtedly would have been as well. Both tribes on the Trump one though were either trying to rush it with hearsay evidence or trying to block the hearsay evidence. Yet neither cared about the actual evidence as evident with the lack of Bolton subpoenas...hence and again a fucking sham...

 

[ehmeye]

Partisan bantering between parties is the essence and downfall of our politics. The founders weren't anti-party, most of them believed it was naturally associated with democracy. Though party loyalty is where the corruption grows, especially given the congressional divide thats been growing since the fall of the USSR and the hyper-polarizing politics of even the general public.

But yeah, in essence fuck the crappy ideas.



Literally it just goes to the supreme court and Bolton would have testified, the executive privilege doesn't overule the impeachment proceedings or matters relevant to the investigations. If the Democrats were at all serious about the impeachment they could have opened another article while the first two were in the Senate and subpoenaed Bolton for it. Literally that's what Nixon tried to fight and lost at the Supreme Court. And then McGahn got his shit pushed in.

This was literally the most partisan impeachment there could have been with the exception of a few Democrats. Clinton and Johnson were bipartisan processes, Nixon undoubtedly would have been as well. Both tribes on the Trump one though were either trying to rush it with hearsay evidence or trying to block the hearsay evidence. Yet neither cared about the actual evidence as evident with the lack of Bolton subpoenas...hence and again a fucking sham...

The Congress passed a law trying to limit the President's power to appoint and fire cabinet members. It was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Johnson was a terrible president but he was railroaded by an overwhelmingly Republican congress back when it was possible to have politicians of different parties as President/VP. He was impeached with 4 Democrat votes out of 49. No Democrat senator voted to convict. Not exactly "bipartisan".

Clinton was impeached with a total of 5 Democrat votes. One was Ralph Hall who switched parties to Republican after 12 terms as a Democrat. No Democrat voted to convict him and 5 Republicans voted to acquit of the obstruction of justice charge and 10 Republicans voted to acquit of the perjury charge. So I guess the vote to acquit was "bipartisan."

Trump did have one R senator vote to convict (on one charge) so in the history of the US, only one president has had a member of his own party vote to convict him of the charge with which he was impeached.

You are undoubtedly correct about Nixon.

Had the House Dems tried to subpoena Bolton, there probably would be an appeal to the SC right around now with the way jurisprudence moves in this country. They decided not to wait, as I think they knew full well that conviction was an almost certainly impossible result. As I said, I agree that the procedure was a sham, but not because there was no actual cause to impeach.

 

[Shikaka]

The Congress passed a law trying to limit the President's power to appoint and fire cabinet members. It was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Johnson was a terrible president but he was railroaded by an overwhelmingly Republican congress back when it was possible to have politicians of different parties as President/VP. He was impeached with 4 Democrat votes out of 49. No Democrat senator voted to convict. Not exactly "bipartisan".

Clinton was impeached with a total of 5 Democrat votes. One was Ralph Hall who switched parties to Republican after 12 terms as a Democrat. No Democrat voted to convict him and 5 Republicans voted to acquit of the obstruction of justice charge and 10 Republicans voted to acquit of the perjury charge. So I guess the vote to acquit was "bipartisan."

Trump did have one R senator vote to convict (on one charge) so in the history of the US, only one president has had a member of his own party vote to convict him of the charge with which he was impeached.

You are undoubtedly correct about Nixon.

Had the House Dems tried to subpoena Bolton, there probably would be an appeal to the SC right around now with the way jurisprudence moves in this country. They decided not to wait, as I think they knew full well that conviction was an almost certainly impossible result. As I said, I agree that the procedure was a sham, but not because there was no actual cause to impeach.

Johnson's resolution for impeachment involved swings of 4 Dem and 2 Rep for the 11 articles. Voting for conviction showed 7 Rep and 9 Dems voting Not Guilty versus the Republican majority. When the Senate was half the size it is today, that's undoubtedly bipartisan.

The Trump impeachment was a partisan sham across the lines with Romney growing balls. Hopefully him and the 3 other Republicans keep their word on the RGB replacement.

I mean you would have an easier time equating his $135,000 rental to the Qatari government as a bribe than the hearsay they pursued.

 

[DankVectorz]

Anyone who says the Russia investigation/impeachment was a sham really needs to read the bipartisan Senate investigation that occurred later. The only sham in that impeachment was thr Traitor Turtle’s version of a trial.

Senate Report Shows What Mueller Missed About Trump and Russia

The final Senate report provides damning evidence of the counterintelligence threat posed by Russia in Trump's 2016 campaign.

theintercept.com