• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

DeaconSig said:
Tell that to Junebug. He's the one that bet that the Senate would actually remove the President from office.

And tell Brad, who for some reason gets his little 2-inch killer all excited thinking about President Pence.
Click to expand...

Can’t believe Junebug thought that might happen. The fact that he still has faith in Pubs to do the right thing is lol unreal. I wonder if he will change back to being a registered Dem now?
 
he doesn't think anything. he just says safe things that are literally impossible so that he can have the appearance of being 'fair'
 
 
Let's see. Who should we trust more? Rudy or Webster?

Hmmmmmmmmm....who married his cousin? Who led the CIA and FBI?

This is a tough one.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Click to expand...

Republicans and those who support them support this 100%. There’s no “but Dems...” This is a massive abuse of power that no doubt will skate by Moscow Mitch and those that enable Trump and the corrupt Pubs. This “breaking news” is yet another day in ordinary Trump USA though.
 
Wonder why the IRS won't follow the law about giving the House Trump's tax returns as the law states they SHALL do when requested? Take a look here:

Rettig now leads the IRS

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/trump-irs-nominee-charles-rettig/index.html

"Trump IRS nominee owns property at Trump-branded hotel

President Donald Trump's nominee to head the IRS owns a stake in two rental units at a Trump-branded hotel in Hawaii.

Charles Rettig was questioned by members of the Senate Finance Committee Thursday on topics ranging from his experience as a tax attorney to his management style.
He was also asked to demonstrate how he would remain independent from the Trump White House.
"That's important with any nominee, but it's especially relevant in Mr. Rettig's case, since he owns and rents out condos in a Trump-branded and managed property," Democratic ranking member Senator Ron Wyden said in his opening remarks.
Rettig owns a 50% stake in two rental units at the Waikiki Trump International Hotel and Tower. He noted the existence of those properties on his original financial disclosure form, but did not disclose that they were located at a Trump-branded hotel. He instead described them as "Honolulu, Hawai'i residential rental property," according to a memo from committee staff obtained by CNN."

No other Senate would ever have allowed such an obvious conflict of interest individual to be put in his job.


Trump IRS nominee owns property at Trump-branded hotel
 
It’s probably because the IRS is an Executive Agency under the Department of Treasury which reports to Trump and he is Rettig’s boss.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Click to expand...

Why is that the quiet part? That’s been their final defense: Biden was/is corrupt, and trump was fighting corruption. The rubes like that story. It fits neatly in their box.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, I did.

I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.

Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Junebug said:
Yes, I did.

I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.

Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
Not likely, but if Trump is acquitted, which I fully expect at this point, I won’t identify as a pub any longer. I’ve already renewed my subscription to Reason.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


This is like all those pubs that “didn’t vote for Trump”.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, I did.

I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.

Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
Click to expand...

You realize going to the court to enforce subpoenas against Bolton and Mulvaney could have taken nearly 8 months and probably would have brought us right up to the 2020 election? The one Trump is trying to cheat in.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
You realize going to the court to enforce subpoenas against Bolton and Mulvaney could have taken nearly 8 months and probably would have brought us right up to the 2020 election? The one Trump is trying to cheat in.
Click to expand...

Yea, but like fairness and a few more fed society folks on the bench and stuff.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, I did.

I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.

Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
Click to expand...

And there it is.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
You realize going to the court to enforce subpoenas against Bolton and Mulvaney could have taken nearly 8 months and probably would have brought us right up to the 2020 election? The one Trump is trying to cheat in.
Click to expand...

This. So nothing would’ve happened. I still find it hilarious that Junebug thinks there are sway-able elected Pubs who would’ve been affected by Bolton’s testimony, and even more so folks in Trumps base. There is literally no evidence that exists that supports that hypothesis given the 90+% approval rating he has with Pubs. And partly blaming the Dems when Trump staff have defied subpoenas is absurd but ok.
 
Junebug said:
You’ve never heard of Bush v. Gore? The court system can act a lot quicker than 8 months in times of exigency.
Click to expand...

Either you don’t understand Moscow Mitch’s court packing plan or you understand it completely. Either way, it supports your position.
 
Junebug said:
You’ve never heard of Bush v. Gore? The court system can act a lot quicker than 8 months in times of exigency.
Click to expand...

For the past 3 years, the president has been blatantly defying subpoenas, obstructing Justice, obstructing congress and demanding members of his administration to do the same.

We’ve been in a time of exigency for at least a year now and arguably longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top