a potential, hypothetical investigation of a crooked politician who brazenly bragged about his corruption isnt ‘violating campaign finance law’ lmfao

campaign finance violations are also "violations of federal election law", they happen frequently, for example to obama, and they are not that big of a deal, certainly nothing impeachment-worthy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784

this example shows that "violations of federal election law" are a very broad category that contains infringements of wildly differing severity and definitely dont automatically clear the bar for impeachment, are not automatically 'substantial enough'.
now, obviously campaign finance reporting mistakes are much less severe than colluding with a foreign power to take out your domestic rival, but the latter is the most anti-trump take on what happened.

it can also be spun as "investigating corruption by an important American politician in a case where this investigation can only be conducted by a foreign state, so that asking them for help was inevitable". which take will prevail remains to be seen.

"it can" and it will be, but you'd have to be either already strictly committed to the 'anything that lets me pretend trump did nothing wrong' side, or simply borderline insane to just ignore the gaping plot and logic holes in that narrative:


you correctly acknowledge that this is about biden specifically, and not corruption and cronyism in general.

trump already knows that he can't ask for, or accept foreign help with his elections, he's gotten into hot water for it before - not only in connection with the russia probe, but also for stating that he would not contact the fbi if he was approached by a foreign government that offered dirt on his political opponents, during an interview with george stephanopoulos.
(btw, in a halfway sane world, a president would have both the moral integrity as well as the legal understanding to simply accept that. i shouldn't have to explain why he definitely knows he can't do that - but since it's trump we're talking about, since standards are at an all time low, and since his apologists love to resort to the legally completely irrelevant 'he's no career politician, he does things his way' narrative to justify his law breaking, i thought i'd just inb4 that)

so it makes absolutely no sense for him to personally pressure ukraine repeatedly to involve his private attorney, rudy giuliani, in the investigation. that outright destroys the already flimsy 'he was simply looking for an adequate way to have it investigated' talking point.

seriously, there is no way this can be spun into a reasonable, logically coherent, or legal approach.
the fact that you're willing to pretend this is a narrative that serious and honest people might genuinely consider, illustrates a massive bias.




oh please, there is absolutely no reason for you to act like it was still undecided. we both already know which narrative will prevail with whom:


the cult, right wing propaganda like FOX, and republican representatives will claim "it's all just a witch hunt / hoax / politically motivated / the process is illegal, rigged, partisan, and unconstitutional / trump was just genuinely concerned about cronyism and corruption / you can't impeach him over that / the witnesses are all democratic operatives who hate america" - regardless of how "meaty" the hearings, how damning the evidence will be.


sane people, on the other hand, already know that trump dangled millions of military aid in order to get dirt on biden. they know it's illegal, they know why he pressures everyone to defy congressional subpoenas and not testify, why his original 'perfect call' was moved to a top secret server, they know he's a crook - but most of them are also well aware that he won't get removed from office over it, simply because republicans have the senate majority.

those republican senators will do their best to initially pretend to be open-minded, then distract the public from the substance with any of the narratives i listed above, and finally they will dutifully vote against removal from office - like they intended to do all along.

as long as trump does what their donors want (and he has been a true blessing for those big corporations and wealthy people), there's literally nothing he could do that would 'convince' republican lawmakers to abandon him. it really speaks for itself that the only republicans, who dared to say anything that even resembles criticism, are those that will not run for office again, or face elections in contested states - not a single principled or genuinely decent voice amongst that lot - that's how bad money corrupted american politics.


interestingly, this whole affair is (thanks in part to trumps written and televised admissions) SO blatantly obvious, i'm positive that even most members of the cult secretly know what trump did was illegal, even though they would never publicly admit it. the only 'problem' is, they simply don't care - because of 'socialism', 'scary brown people', and 'owning the libs'.

but hey, keep pretending it's a mystery which narrative will prevail. want to bet some nerdcoins on it? i'm willing to give you crazy good odds if you genuinely believe this is not a foregone conclusion.

Someone registered the warrenmemeteam IG before warren could lmao

Project Veritas got a pretty legit scoop on this video
only first 1:24 and then 4:47-6:47 are the actual source video, everything else is commentary

ABC News host Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic complaining that she had the scoop on Jeffery Epstein a full three years ago, had talked to Virginia Roberts and other women, had pictures, accusations, implicating epstein, the crown, (bill) clinton, etc
All around election time 2016
And ABC suppressed the story and covered it up for 3 years.

So yeah, ABC caught completely redhanded spiking the Epstein story

top comment

michael smith
1 hour ago
Having dirt on a Clinton is more lethal than cancer.

676


lmfao

e: ABC's excuse is Robach's story “Didn’t meet ABCs editorial standards”
same ABC that had an anchor try to crash the markets couple years ago by running a blatantly false story about Flynn

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 5 2019 10:55am

they had PICTURES of prince andrew with virginia giuffre
in the 3 years that they suppressed their reporting on epstein, they also ran anti-Kavanaugh hit pieces based not just on the evidenceless blasey ford accusation, but also the obviously fabricated ones by avenatti/swetnick and the trolls/bandwagoners pushing false stories to the tipline. They also ran hit pieces on the covington catholic kids for just smiling. But apparently the reporting on epstein wasn't up to their editorial standards. Wonder how many young girls were flown to pedophile island in the years ABC was suppressing that story in the name of their strict editorial standards

wouldn't be surprised they sat on it because the high-ups at ABC were involved/connected etc. see the NBC cover up of Weinstein and subsequent news that came out that a lot of their top brass was guilty of the same shit as that fat piece of crap.

the hollywoodreporter, new york post, daily mail and fox news are already running with this story. so this story has, in a sense, already hit "mainstream" news. unsurprisingly, the liberal mainstream media is dead silent about it.

oh yeah, and the statement by ABC news and Robach are super unconvincing:


In the vid, Robach says:


now compare the tone of what she said on the hot mic to her explanatory statement released today:



So she wants us to believe that all they had was an interview with a single woman who had mental issues and no corroborating evidence, but in private, she describes this as "its unbelievable what we had, Bill Clinton, [Prince Andrew], we had everything. [...] What we had was unreal"? Are you kidding me? A seasoned journalist considering a literally unbelievable story by a single source without corroborating evidence as such a bombshell and being that frustrated about her broadcaster spiking the story?

Even setting the obvious editorial double standard of ABC aside, this is super fishy.

tbh this is what we have come to expect from ABC, who tried to pass off footage of a gun event in Kentucky as a battle in Syria.



that said, their cover-up of Epstein is despicable. probably even criminal. sounds like obstruction of justice
it's also election interference. actual interference. sitting on a story that would have painted a Clinton in a very negative light in 2016

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 5 2019 12:32pm