Jump to content

jimmyjazz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    47516
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by jimmyjazz

  1. 3 minutes ago, Cosimo de' Medici said:

    I love this circle jerk thread of loudmouth fucktards who enjoy spending the middle of a workday bitching and moaning. Know the silent majority is laughing at you. Silent only because we are busy contributing to the economy and society.

    I don't know if it's a majority, but I'm damned glad modern conservatives laugh at me.  It reaffirms that I'm on the right side of history.

  2. 2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

    Not that facts matter, but Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform.  If ANYTHING, less scrutiny would be warranted, not more.

  3. Just now, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

    This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

    Government data is fun, for those who want to dig in:

    Oops dot gov

    • Like 1
  4. I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

    This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

  5. I remain flabbergasted that a professor at an elite law school is saying this procedure is invalid because it has gone too fast and the reports aren't long enough.

    Let's take the former:  impeachment proceedings must take a long time.  This flies in the face of logic.  It basically asserts that POTUS could not be impeached for heinous crimes committed in, say his 3rd year of office.  There's just not enough time.  

    Let's take the latter:  impeachment proceedings must generate a massive amount of documentation.  Now, I am friends with many lawyers, and lord knows they love their word counts, but come on.  A video of Donald Trump murdering someone on 5th Avenue in NYC would be sufficient for impeachment.  To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

    Justice is not measured with a stopwatch, a calendar, or a scale.  Ironically, the Republicans currently have their thumb on the scales of Justice, and yet they're crying "foul".

    • Like 2
  6. I don't know why I ask this question over and over, but why would someone who has clearly risen to the upper echelons of his profession gaslight like Turley is doing? 

    He's making all kinds of specious claims.  "Impeachment requires proof".  No, REMOVAL requires proof, at least if people are acting honestly.  

    He's saying exactly NONE of Trump's actions as POTUS constitute obstruction of justice.  He knows that's not true -- why die on this hill?  

    Asshat.

  7. I find it embarrassing that these legal scholars have to provide mundane examples of solicitation, etc. in order to make it blindingly obvious why Trump's actions are impeachable.

    I fully expect Gym and the boys to attempt to get Turley to somehow muddy that picture.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...