Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

[Guest #1Stunner]

14 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Primary, bro.

 

You think a radical candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is going to walk back their statements in the general election?

Elizabeth Warren's calls to give black folks reparations, give free health care to non-citizens, confiscate all guns, are going to be called out by Trump / Republicans---video footage of her positions will be used in ads. 

She's going to get clobbered in the election because she's too radical.   And the statements that her positions are "too radical", and "not feasible" and silly are coming from the moderate Democrats who tried to run in the Primary.

 

[WAC_FAN]

10 hours ago, toonkee said:

Who's going to tell Tulsi Republicans don't vote on the Democrat primary?

Honestly, they should.  Trump winning the primary, this is a good chance for the Republicans to switch to Democrat and vote for the worst candidate.

[retrofade]

Is Nunes broken?

 

[Akkula]

3 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Is Nunes broken?

 

Maybe those nude pictures are classified?  Pee tape?  They have already abused the classification system so who knows what else is hidden in there.

[Old_SD_Dude]

27 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

The impeachment thing is nothing....

And the biggest evidence of that is because we have Democrats thinking Trump's phone call with Ukraine's President is a huge deal...  And Republicans thinking it isn't a huge deal.....

Only way an impeachment makes sense is if BOTH sides overwhelmingly agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" was committed.   Impeachment is a radical solution and should be reserved for radical offenses.  

 

The fact that someone can rationally argue (either way) whether Trump's 2 minute phone call is big deal, makes me conclude it is not a big deal.  He asked Ukraine's President to investigate Hunter Biden's ties to a Ukrainian company, that was already under investigation in Ukraine... big deal.

Why was Hunter Biden in Ukraine in the first place?   Does he like Borscht or something?

 

If the call wasn't a big deal why did they allegedly save the verbatim transcript on a secret server?

[Guest #1Stunner]

31 minutes ago, Akkula said:

What type of rational person can argue that asking for foreign interference by withholding military aid and then classifying that information to hide it from the public and congress because they knew it was DIRTY is "No big deal."  Is that what they are saying at Breitbart today?  

I'll explain:

(1) First, you are operating on the premise that "asking for foreign interference by withholding military aid" is the gospel truth of what occurred in that phone call.   That's your position.   An alternative RATIONAL argument can also be made that there was no such "quid pro quo" at all in the phone call, and that people are making a leap to make such a reading.   I mean, it isn't at all clear....it's at best innuendo.   People have even had to resort to trying to put all sort of redlines on the transcript to try and connect the dots (when it takes that much effort, it's not clear cut).

(2) Hide it from the Public?    Who said this is what happened?   The whistleblower?   Why do you accept one person's characterization is the gospel truth that there was a coverup?   Who made the whistleblower God?  Hell, who is the whistlblower?   I thought that person was operating on hearsay (they don't even have personal knowledge of the situation).  Also, can a rational person merely alternatively conclude that it wasn't a coverup, but an attempt to perserve a classified phone call between the President and foreign leader?

 

I don't give two shiits about Breibart.....

I'm merely pointing out that this impeachment is NOTHING, because rational arguments can be made to support either side.   You are going to need a much more serious, CLEAR CUT crime / misdemeanor than this if you are going to levy a charge of impeachment.   Everyone is going to have to agree that it is a clear crime that was committed (not the case here).

[Guest #1Stunner]

14 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

For his political, legal, and banking expertise I would imagine.  Burisima was the largest natural gas company in Ukraine, but worked with a lot of state-owned companies and different types of agreements for drilling and distributing.

Hunter Biden has a law degree from Yale, experience in banking, department of commerce (dealing with e-commerce), appointed by GW Bush to be on Amtrak board, and then a few years doing hedge fund stuff.

 

So, he served on the boards of a bunch of companies?   

It must be great to be white privileged from a wealthy, politically connected family.   Collect those huge paychecks for doing nothing...  Get those board of director jobs.

Law Degree from Yale??? (I'm sure he earned his admission!)

 

I doubt Hunter Biden did any real consulting or work for Burisima.   Dude was on the board of directors, I thought.   Those people don't do anything.

[retrofade]

I just took a gander at Trump's Twitter feed... still handling things well.

 

 

Notice how he's tying the GOP in with this now... see, the evil bad Democrats are trying to destroy the GOP, you have to protect me to protect the party!

[Guest #1Stunner]

5 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

If the call wasn't a big deal why did they allegedly save the verbatim transcript on a secret server?

I don't have enough knowledge on what the Secret Service does to protect private phone calls of the President of the United States.

Maybe they are trying to stop rampant leaks?   I really can't say....

I also think it is important, generally speaking, that a President (any President) can have private phone calls with other leaders.

[alum93]

Just now, #1Stunner said:

I don't have enough knowledge on what the Secret Service does to protect private phone calls of the President of the United States.

Maybe they are trying to stop rampant leaks?   I really can't say....

I also think it is important, generally speaking, that a President (any President) can have private phone calls with other leaders.

They can and do all the time.  They can't ask foreign leaders for dirt on an opponent for an election, and they certainly can't do it while holding up military aid for a favor.

[bsu_alum9]

Just now, #1Stunner said:

I doubt Hunter Biden did any real consulting or work for Burisima.   Dude was on the board of directors, I thought.   Those people don't do anything.

Exactly.  But you asked what he was doing there?  

[Guest #1Stunner]

Guys....

Hunter Biden got a "free job" in the Ukraine, because of his Daddy.  Not because he is some sort of genius or provided any sort of service for the Ukrainian company.

This is a common racket, not exclusive Democrats or Republicans.

Hell... Chelsea Clinton is also on the Board of Directors of a bunch of companies, getting that "free money" for doing nothing.  I'm sure that Republicans do the same thing.

 

http://thejewishvoice.com/2019/05/03/chelsea-clinton-racking-up-millions-as-board-director-of-companies-owned-by-parents-friend-barry-diller/

 

[Old_SD_Dude]

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

I don't have enough knowledge on what the Secret Service does to protect private phone calls of the President of the United States.

Maybe they are trying to stop rampant leaks?   I really can't say....

I also think it is important, generally speaking, that a President (any President) can have private phone calls with other leaders.

They do have safeguards. But this call was allegedly treated differently. When we see the verbatim transcript, and we know what some of the roughly one dozen staff present during the call allegedly decided to do to "lock down" the call, I don't see how you can conclude that there's nothing there.

[Guest #1Stunner]

2 minutes ago, alum93 said:

They can and do all the time.  They can't ask foreign leaders for dirt on an opponent for an election, and they certainly can't do it while holding up military aid for a favor.

"ask foreign leaders for dirt" on an opponent.

I'm not aware of this ever happening.   Is that the same thing as asking a foreign leader to look into investigating a crime at one of their national companies?    If Hunter Biden didn't committ any crimes, then it is a nothing burger and there is no story here.

[alum93]

Just now, #1Stunner said:

"ask foreign leaders for dirt" on an opponent.

I'm not aware of this ever happening.   Is that the same thing as asking a foreign leader to look into investigating a crime at one of their national companies?    If Hunter Biden didn't committ any crimes, then it is a nothing burger and there is no story here.

Well we know what the Republican talking points are.  Now we'll see if the House votes to impeach.  

[Guest #1Stunner]

4 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

They do have safeguards. But this call was allegedly treated differently. When we see the verbatim transcript, and we know what some of the roughly one dozen staff present during the call allegedly decided to do to "lock down" the call, I don't see how you can conclude that there's nothing there.

OK, I think this can be rationally argued many ways (that's the problem----you are going to need an OVERWHELMING commission of a crime, where all sides will agree a crime was committed, if impeachment is going to work.

This phone call situation is dumb.   It's going no where.   Both sides will just argue that their position / interpretation is correct.    We even have Democratic Presidential Candidates saying that their interpretation is that there is no impeachable offense.

Pelosi should have kicked this can down the street.  Focus on beating Trump in the election on actual policy ideas.

[Guest #1Stunner]

4 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Well we know what the Republican talking points are.  Now we'll see if the House votes to impeach.  

We know how this will play out.

House Democrats will vote to impeach (which they know will lose)

Donald Trump will not be impeached.

Donald Trump will probably get reelected. 

[retrofade]

Jesus +++++ing Christ...

Quote

President Trump on Thursday morning told a crowd of staff from the United States Mission to the United Nations that he wants to know who provided information to a whistle-blower about his phone call with the president of Ukraine, saying that whoever did so was “close to a spy” and that “in the old days,” spies were dealt with differently.

The remark stunned people in the audience, according to a person briefed on what took place, who had notes of what the president said. Mr. Trump made the statement about several minutes into his remarks before the group of about 50 people at the event intended to honor the United States Mission. At the outset, he condemned the former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s role in Ukraine at a time when his son Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

Mr. Trump repeatedly referred to the whistle-blower and condemned the news media reporting on the complaint as “crooked.” He then said the whistle-blower never heard the call in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-spy.html

[mugtang]

3 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Jesus +++++ing Christ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-spy.html

[bsu_alum9]

4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

This phone call situation is dumb.   It's going no where.   Both sides will just argue that their position / interpretation is correct.    We even have Democratic Presidential Candidates saying that their interpretation is that there is no impeachable offense.

It isn't just the phone call though.  Read the whistleblower complaint.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html