Trump admits crimes on "Fox & Friends"

Hercules56

Penultimate Amazing
Hercules56
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
17,176
https://youtu.be/oU6_HVY3TjI

Its all there. Trump admits to withholding aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate the so-called "missing DNC server".

He thinks his crimes were perfectly fine. No problem.

We know he did what he is accused of. All that matters now is whether or not the Republicans in the Senate think such behavior is appropriate for a President.
 
Last edited:
It was too weird and rambling to count as an admission, to my mind, but he clearly does believe that CrowdStrike is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian and that the DNC Server is in Ukraine - because "that's what I've heard". That's the President of the US talking there. Stunning.
 
CapelDodger said:
It was too weird and rambling to count as an admission, to my mind, but he clearly does believe that CrowdStrike is owned by a wealthy Ukrainian and that the DNC Server is in Ukraine - because "that's what I've heard". That's the President of the US talking there. Stunning.
Click to expand...

Personally I wish there was a strong alternative to Impeachment & removal.

Say, add an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to vote to make the POTUS the VP and vice-versa.
 
Why would we want Pence to be POTUS? Trump would just bully him and stay in charge as a VP.:rolleyes:

The reason Trump is confessing on Fox is he's becoming bolder and bolder in his mind that he didn't do anything wrong and if he did he won't be ousted by the Senate.

I sincerely hope the Democrats in the House drag this out long enough, adding more evidence that there's a chance it won't immediately be dismissed in the Senate.

There are some GOP Senators that won't vote to dismiss the charges without a trial.

The Democrats are doing a piss-poor job of marketing Trump's guilt while the Republicans are repeating their talking points multiple times a day in different venues.
 
Well, he certainly stayed true to form. I wonder if he really believes in the Crowdstrike nonsense or if he's just pushing it to deflect from the Russians being behind it.

Is it just me or did the Fox and Friends hosts look uncomfortable with a lot of what Trump was saying? Especially the Crowdstrike and George Conway bits?
 
The Fox and Friends crew always look like they're humoring their crazy rambling uncle over dinner whenever Trump calls in.
 
*Deadpan* Oh he admitted to wrong doing. Surely this will finally be the thing to take down Trump. I mean nobody can support him now.
 
"you wouldn't have any riots, you'd have a police state" --DJT in reference to the Hong Kong riots
He is so blatantly fascist and ******* crazy.
 
Hercules56 said:
https://youtu.be/oU6_HVY3TjI

Its all there. Trump admits to withholding aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate the so-called "missing DNC server".

He thinks his crimes were perfectly fine. No problem.

We know he did what he is accused of. All that matters now is whether or not the Republicans in the Senate think such behavior is appropriate for a President.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the filthy, treasonous Trumptrash won't care. It's up to real Americans to shout this from the rooftops so citizens of this country who are still worthy of being called Americans know the kind of scum they have in the Oval Office, Congress and as neighbors.
 
smartcooky said:
The Emperor is stark, bollock naked, and 4 in every 10 Americans are too ******* dumb to notice!
Click to expand...

....and sadly, maybe another 2 out of 10 are now bored with the impeachment process because it's taking too long and it's got too many "minor" characters. They wanted a one or two hour TV special in which major Administration members dropped bombshell after bombshell. Instead they've got the patient and gradual accumulation of evidence.

As a result even though they can see that the emperor is naked, they can't summon up the energy to give a ****. :mad:
 
Roger Ramjets said:
There is, actually an even better one. Vote him out. Then there will be no argument over whether he deserved it.
Click to expand...

Until him and his armed "volunteer elections monitors" decide it wasn't a fair election and there just had to be millions of illegals voting for the Democrat.

And all the voter suppression tactics local Republican governments are ramming through.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
There is, actually an even better one. Vote him out. Then there will be no argument over whether he deserved it.
Click to expand...

You genuinely think that if Trump is voted out of office, there won't be any arguments that the election was fraudulent?

He claimed millions of illegal votes for his opponent when he *won* the election. He formed a commission to support this, though it was a failure. If he's voted out, he will certainly claim fraud.

The question is how many of his supporters and especially Republicans in Congress and the Senate will parrot his claims.
 
phiwum said:
You genuinely think that if Trump is voted out of office, there won't be any arguments that the election was fraudulent?

He claimed millions of illegal votes for his opponent when he *won* the election. He formed a commission to support this, though it was a failure. If he's voted out, he will certainly claim fraud.

The question is how many of his supporters and especially Republicans in Congress and the Senate will parrot his claims.
Click to expand...

All of them. There will be serious attempts to overturn the election if Trump loses.
And if he wins, God help us. There will be serious attempts to give him more terms.
 
Trebuchet said:
All of them. There will be serious attempts to overturn the election if Trump loses.
And if he wins, God help us. There will be serious attempts to give him more terms.
Click to expand...

The two-term limit was established by the 22nd amendment. If Trump is re-elected and the Repubs keep the Senate and take back the House, they could pass a repeal and send it to the states for ratification. The question is whether there would be enough Trump legislatures to support it.

I note that the amendment limits the number of times that a person can be elected President. Narrowly interpreted, that wouldn't prevent Trump from being elected VP with a figurehead President, and even assuming the office if that President left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Perhaps I missed the relevant part of the video, but I didn't hear Trump admitting to a quid pro quo. I did hear him talking about the DNC server, but not saying he withheld aid. Can someone provide a timestamp?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
There is, actually an even better one. Vote him out. Then there will be no argument over whether he deserved it.
Click to expand...

But there will be a statement that it's fine to act like a dictator, fine to encourage foreign governments to interfere in the election, fine to use charities for your personal piggy banks, no doubt he's also cheated on his taxes claiming donations he didn't make, and fine to use various schemes to get around election finance laws.

Not to mention giving this guy yet another pass that he will interpret, not as a close call, he better straighten up, but a pass that means he can get away with anything he wants. He will get more bold in breaking the law, abusing his office.

You don't know if he isn't able to perpetrate blatant election fraud, certainly there will be the same bots and trolls interfering. Or he might bribe a few state election department heads to pull even more disenfranchisement schemes. George Bush has a whole slew of them to choose from.
 
phiwum said:
You genuinely think that if Trump is voted out of office, there won't be any arguments that the election was fraudulent?

He claimed millions of illegal votes for his opponent when he *won* the election. He formed a commission to support this, though it was a failure. If he's voted out, he will certainly claim fraud.

The question is how many of his supporters and especially Republicans in Congress and the Senate will parrot his claims.
Click to expand...
Good point. It's not like if he's voted out it will convince anyone that he fairly lost anymore than it will convince anyone the impeachment was fair.

I say the Democrats should put everything he's done in the articles, throw the book at him from the Mueller report to obstruction of justice covering up the Ukrainian crimes, including the backchannel politics. At least it will give his crimes some daylight and make the Republicans look bad.

Expect the lie being marketed now that this will make the Democrats look petty to be repeated in more and more places.

The Democrats need to push their own narrative that Trump is dangerously corrupt and to let him get away with it seriously damages our democracy. Some commercials about now that this is the biggest challenge to our democracy would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
The two-term limit was established by the 22nd amendment. If Trump is re-elected and the Repubs keep the Senate and take back the House, they could pass a repeal and send it to the states for ratification. The question is whether there would be enough Trump legislatures to support it
Click to expand...

That would require a 2/3 super-majority in both the Senate and the House. Not only would they have to take back the Senate and the House, they would need to flip enough seats to give them at least 67-33 in the Senate and 292-143 in the House.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Perhaps I missed the relevant part of the video, but I didn't hear Trump admitting to a quid pro quo. I did hear him talking about the DNC server, but not saying he withheld aid. Can someone provide a timestamp?
Click to expand...

You're right, he mostly repeated his lies that he held the money up to get reassurance the new government was't corrupt. Schiff has to prove that's a lie. I wonder if Bolton is holding out for some quid pro quo from Trump to exonerate him or incriminate him. Heck, Bolton could blackmail Trump for months if he plays his cards right.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
That would require a 2/3 super-majority in both the Senate and the House. Not only would they have to take back the Senate and the House, they would need to flip enough seats to give them at least 67-33 in the Senate and 292-143 in the House.
Click to expand...
Plus 2/3 of the states.
 
Hercules56 said:
Personally I wish there was a strong alternative to Impeachment & removal.

Say, add an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to vote to make the POTUS the VP and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand what "strong alternative" is supposed to mean in this context.

The alternative you suggest seems functionally equivalent to impeachment, with much the same strengths and weaknesses.
 
Why do you think it's a crime for the President to ask for assistance in a corruption investigation?
 
Drewbot said:
Why do you think it's a crime for the President to ask for assistance in a corruption investigation?
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Or are you not aware that the above is an excuse for what he was really doing?

I mean, presumably you didn't just wake up from a three month coma to hear about this for the first time here, right?
 
smartcooky said:
That would require a 2/3 super-majority in both the Senate and the House. Not only would they have to take back the Senate and the House, they would need to flip enough seats to give them at least 67-33 in the Senate and 292-143 in the House.
Click to expand...

If 34 states call for a convention, it doesn't matter who controls Congress. It's never happened - close a few times - but then neither had Trump until a couple of years ago.
 
Drewbot said:
Why do you think it's a crime for the President to ask for assistance in a corruption investigation?
Click to expand...

He wasn't asking for help in an investigation. He tried to coerce an ally into announcing an investigation, irrespective if there was an actual investigation, by with holding aid against an enemy that was already promised and approved. He used his office to leverage a personal favor that ran contrary to the interests of the United states.

is that plain enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom