Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

RocksInMyHead · Nov 5, 2019

NotreDame said:
Trump has said the appearance of impropriety, VP Biden insisting Ukraine remove the prosecutor or no chips for Ukraine, the same prosecutor investigating Burisma, a company in Ukraine in which his son sat on the board, merited an investigation. This, of course, may be a baseless and false narrative. But to rightfully impeach Trump, it needs to be shown Trump’s narrative for asking Ukraine to investigate is false and/or baseless.

The evidence for that, at least in the public realm, is that Trump never told the Attorney General about the conversation - let alone asked him to call Zelensky, as he said he would. He did absolutely nothing to initiate a federal investigation into Biden's actions. Had he actually wanted to investigate Biden for corruption, there would be far more evidence here in the US (where Biden lives and was working at the time) than in Ukraine.

There's also the fact that we have a treaty with Ukraine that explicitly lays out how such requests for legal assistance are to be made. Trump did not follow those guidelines.

GOD Shines Forth! · Nov 5, 2019

Basil the Great said:
Something seemed to change in Sen. Graham after his good friend Sen. McCain passed away.

Graham + McCain formed a third personality. Graham, now alone, re-calibrated for maximum survival.

stevil · Nov 6, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
I will pray for his challenger next year.

Voting might be useful as well.

TLK Valentine · Nov 6, 2019

NotreDame said:
No, his reasons do not “hinge on his credibility.” For purposes of impeachment, something more substantial, palpable, is needed to show he has a false narrative other than “credibility.” And the argument he lied in the past he is therefore lying now is not a good argument, and it is not sufficient for impeachment.

Well, credibility plus the fact that he was trading government aid not for an actual investigation, but for the public announcement of an investigation, seems suspicious.

There's also the issue of Giuliani's -- the president's personal attorney who holds no official government position -- involvement. Seems like a real investigation could be handled by the DoJ... why bring Rudy into it?

Grounds for impeachment? You say "not yet," but it certainly raises a few questions that deserve to be answered... and POTUS is ording his employees to defy subpoenas in order not to answer.

ETA... but of course this is all irrelevant insofar as Graham is concerned... his mind, by his own admission, is already made up, and he refuses to read any transcripts or examine any testimony. I got jury duty coming up in a few months; I'll be sure to say something similar during voir dire.

NotreDame · Nov 6, 2019

RocksInMyHead said:
The evidence for that, at least in the public realm, is that Trump never told the Attorney General about the conversation - let alone asked him to call Zelensky, as he said he would. He did absolutely nothing to initiate a federal investigation into Biden's actions. Had he actually wanted to investigate Biden for corruption, there would be far more evidence here in the US (where Biden lives and was working at the time) than in Ukraine.

You’re speculating “there would be far more evidence here in the US.” I do not know that, you do not know that, but I’ll tell what is known.

VP Biden was physically in Ukraine. While rhere VP Biden spoke to someone, maybe more than one person, about firing the prosecutor. There may have been witnesses to the conversation(s). VP Biden also told someone in Ukraine no U.S. dollars unless the prosecutor was given a pink slip, and there may be witnesses to this exchange. So, there is at least one person, maybe more, and perhaps some witnesses, in Ukraine. What VP Biden said specifically is relevant. Hence, it makes sense to ask Ukraine to look into it.

Kentonio · Nov 6, 2019

NotreDame said:
You’re speculating “there would be far more evidence here in the US.” I do not know that, you do not know that, but I’ll tell what is known.

VP Biden was physically in Ukraine. While rhere VP Biden spoke to someone, maybe more than one person, about firing the prosecutor. There may have been witnesses to the conversation(s). VP Biden also told someone in Ukraine no U.S. dollars unless the prosecutor was given a pink slip, and there may be witnesses to this exchange. So, there is at least one person, maybe more, and perhaps some witnesses, in Ukraine. What VP Biden said specifically is relevant. Hence, it makes sense to ask Ukraine to look into it.

We don’t need evidence that Biden threatened US aid if they didn’t fire the corrupt prosecutor. This was done quite openly and no-one is denying it. It was done to further US policy (with the support of the EU and other major international organizations) to reduce corruption in Ukraine.

KCfromNC · Nov 6, 2019

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:
Well...the process is complete "B.S." As discussed in other threads, this was never about impeachment, justice, or finding truth.

And as we've seen from the OP, the GOP leadership making this claim know this because they refuse to look at the actual facts surrounding the case.

KCfromNC · Nov 6, 2019

NotreDame said:
No, his reasons do not “hinge on his credibility.” For purposes of impeachment, something more substantial, palpable, is needed to show he has a false narrative other than “credibility.”

Yes, for example all the lying, obstruction, and threats against various witnesses.

KCfromNC · Nov 6, 2019

TLK Valentine said:
Well, credibility plus the fact that he was trading government aid not for an actual investigation, but for the public announcement of an investigation, seems suspicious.

This also coincided with a huge ad campaign smearing the very same political opponent. Quite a coincidence to explain that away.

Weird these actual facts didn't make it into the initial off-topic analysis of Donald's impeachment situation.

TLK Valentine · Nov 6, 2019

KCfromNC said:
This also coincided with a huge ad campaign smearing the very same political opponent. Quite a coincidence to explain that away.

Weird these actual facts didn't make it into the initial off-topic analysis of Donald's impeachment situation.

Well, this is all moot, since by his own admission, Graham refuses to look at facts -- his mind is made up, the fix is in.

How many other Senators are similarly opposed to the facts?

KCfromNC · Nov 6, 2019

TLK Valentine said:
Well, this is all moot, since by his own admission, Graham refuses to look at facts -- his mind is made up, the fix is in.

How many other Senators are similarly opposed to the facts?

We, and more importantly the people who have the power to vote them out of office, will find out soon enough.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Nov 6, 2019

TLK Valentine said:
That is the narrative and Donald's sticking to it... and so long as he can pay off or intimidate his followers, many of them will stick to it as well.

Exactly how many of them have been intimidated or bought off is a mystery we may never solve.

May I present exhibit A.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Nov 6, 2019

timothyu said:
Same game both sides have played before. People love taking sides so no one calls them on it.

Oh... I don't recall any Democrat president ever being threatened with impeachment less than one year before an election. In fact, there has never been a president who was impeached during their first term. The facts are simple. The Democrats ironically don't trust democracy anymore and don't want to risk a Trump win in 2020.

Speedwell · Nov 6, 2019

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:
Oh... I don't recall any Democrat president ever being threatened with impeachment less than one year before an election. In fact, there has never been a president who was impeached during their first term. The facts are simple. The Democrats ironically don't trust democracy anymore and don't want to risk a Trump win in 2020.

Andrew Johnson was impeached during his first term.

whatbogsends · Nov 6, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Did Lindsey Graham do a back flip? What would prompt him to strongly oppose Donald Trump previously, then love him now?

He opposed Trump when Trump was a candidate, as it was obvious that he was morally unfit for the job.

He supports him now because Trump is widely popular with the Republican base, so it's politically expedient for him to do so.

SimplyMe · Nov 6, 2019

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:
Oh... I don't recall any Democrat president ever being threatened with impeachment less than one year before an election. In fact, there has never been a president who was impeached during their first term. The facts are simple. The Democrats ironically don't trust democracy anymore and don't want to risk a Trump win in 2020.

No, we were only told by Republicans that, had Hillary won the election, they would have started an impeachment investigation when she took office, if not before.

GreatLakes4Ever · Nov 6, 2019

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:
Oh... I don't recall any Democrat president ever being threatened with impeachment less than one year before an election. In fact, there has never been a president who was impeached during their first term. The facts are simple. The Democrats ironically don't trust democracy anymore and don't want to risk a Trump win in 2020.

Speedwell said:
Andrew Johnson was impeached during his first term.

Andrew Johnson was also impeached in late February of an election year.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Nov 6, 2019

KCfromNC said:
And as we've seen from the OP, the GOP leadership making this claim know this because they refuse to look at the actual facts surrounding the case.

Well...again they are facts collected from a B.S. secret kangaroo court in which only Democrats can subpoena witnesses, Trump is provided no representation, Republicans are not allowed to cross examine the witnesses or even ask any questions without approval from Schiff. Furthermore, Schiff is coaching the witnesses and telling them they don't need to answer any questions from Republicans. This has never happened any time in American history. House and Senate Republicans, and many people in the country, find the whole process to be complete B.S. It is not about the information that was collected. Rather, the issue is about the manner at which it was collected.

SimplyMe · Nov 6, 2019

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:
Well...again they are facts collected from a B.S. secret kangaroo court in which only Democrats can subpoena witnesses, Trump is provided no representation, Republicans are not allowed to cross examine the witnesses or even ask any questions without approval from Schiff. Furthermore, Schiff is coaching the witnesses and telling them they don't need to answer any questions from Republicans. This has never happened any time in American history. House and Senate Republicans, and many people in the country, find the whole process to be complete B.S. It is not about the information that was collected. Rather, the issue is about the manner at which it was collected.

Please quit misrepresenting. There was no court. There was a series of interviews in which an investigation was taking place. If you are a prime suspect, you have no right to have your lawyer present at, or to even listen to, the interviews the police do with potential witnesses.

And if you don't like the rules of the investigation, Republicans can only blame themselves as these are the rules they created -- just they were using them when they investigated Clinton, not thinking ahead to how they could be used against a Republican.

whatbogsends · Nov 6, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
Hopefully his constituents look back at what he said about Trump in 2016 and don't believe he really likes Donald.

I wouldn't give people that much credit.

Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Godless and without morals

I've already read the books you want burned.

Domer

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads