The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Today, September 24, 2019, for only the third time in American history, the Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry into the actions of a President of the United States - Donald Trump. (Nixon would have been the fourth, but he resigned before it was over.)
- Johnson's impeachment was over Johnson breaking the law established by Congress in similar fashion as Pelosi described in her announcement; in this case he fired the Secretary of War in direct contradiction of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. There were eleven articles of impeachment. It is interesting to note that 10 Republican Senators defied their party and voted for acquittal of Johnson. All were subsequently voted out of office.
- Nixon's impeachment proceedings were based on the Watergate cover-ups and subsequent abuse of power and obstruction of justice by Nixon. He resigned once the tapes were released proving his guilt.
- Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury (lying under oath) about whether he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate vote in a Republican controlled Senate was not even close for conviction.
- Donald Trump is facing possible impeachment because of breaking Whistleblower law and the abuse of power associated with it. Those are the reasons Nancy Pelosi gave to start the impeachment hearings.
What pushed Speaker Pelosi over the edge was Donald Trump publicly ADMITTING that he had pressured a foreign leader, the President of Ukraine, to dig up dirt on a political rival (Joe Biden) for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2020 election. Worse is the potential of a quid pro quo that if the Ukrainian president did this then Trump would release hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid which Congress had directed him to spend on Ukraine. (Note - the quid pro quo only makes things worse, the original request is enough to impeach.)
Thoughts?It's the correct thing to do even if hurts the left in the long run, Scott. I admire Nancy for doing what she didn't want to do, but knew it was the right thing to do. Let the games begin...
Trump is going to continue to play to his base and try to convince them that Biden and his son are the evil ones. That is right out of the narcissistic play book to transfer blame to the accusing party.
He will also try to claim victory which is right out of his mentor's Ray Cohn playbook: "No matter what happens, no matter how deeply into the muck you get, claim victory and never admit defeat."
Fox News also has a huge audience and his propaganda machine can reach many people who just have a blind faith in him and could care less about what he does or says. They will continue to support him.
I think Pelosi is being very smart by taking Trump at his word that he admitted to trying to bribe a foreign power for his own good, not the good of the people.
She needs to continue to broadcast to the world what she said, "The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."Corrupt for sure, criminal and traitorous perhaps.
Biden is the poster child for all that is wrong with D.C. ... much like Clinton was in 2016. The American people didn't fall for it then, and they won't fall for it in 2020 either.
"By any means necessary" ~ The Anti-Trumpers & Ruling Elites
If THE PEOPLE want Trump out... they can vote him out of office in 2020.
Impeachment means nothing... it did nothing to Clinton but make him more popular, it will do the same for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afMofYie4LcA traitor should be impeached to stop him from harming the country further. America can't wait for 2021 - he can do too much damage in that year.
Clinton was already popular, it just didn't lower his popularity. Also, Clinton didn't commit:
1. Treason
2. Abuse his power
3. Extort foreign leaders
4. Bribe foreign leaders
5. Obstruct Justice
6. Obstruct Congress
7. etc. etc
What Clinton did was lie to a grand jury about getting a blow job from an intern. In the meantime Trump is on the record about wanting grab women by their pussy - go figureYou feel Trump did those things, maybe because you don't like anything he has done.
Others don't see it that way, they feel he is doing his job, nothing more. Politics that is all these charges amount to.
I get it, he has undone decades of work towards a borderless world, he has undone years of effort to shift the wealth of this nation to other countries, he has restored much of the sovereignty that was sacrificed to the UN, IMF, etc. He is filling the courts with conservative judges that want to maintain and defend the Constitution.
You have plenty of reason to hate him, but I won't support a "soft coup" to remove him, and neither will the majority of America.
If you don't want to wait until 2020 to remove him through the election process, that's just too damned bad, because no other way is acceptable to the majority of America.You presume motives that don't factor into the support for impeachment. Most normal human beings want to see someone held accountable when they witness that person break the law.
As for the majority of America comment, you're not in the majority on your stance towards the impeachment inquiry. That's another false presumption you make in your comment.
In terms of what you believe he has undone...How does spending millions in building a wall that smugglers are cutting through with a $100 saw seal the border? How does borrowing trillions from China in deficit spending not shift wealth to other countries? How does creating policies (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruling-holds … 48024.html) that lead to the courts ruling there is culpability of our government for the trauma of migrants not waste taxpayer dollars? He nominated young judges to lifetime posts who are completely unqualified for those positions while he ignores major parts of the Constitution daily.
And what brought impeachment was Trump's illegal request of Ukraine to smear Biden after he announced his candidacy for the 2020 election. Allowing Trump to break election laws provides neither free or fair elections. It amazes me that articulate people such as yourself cannot understand what led to this impeachment when it's so clear to a majority of Americans.OK, the Russia Probe was a Watergate type of breach of the Trump campaign, lets hold all those who were responsible for that accountable.
Or how about holding Biden accountable for his 1.8 Billion dollar deal with China that he funneled through his son's 'investment' front. Or the 900k he got paid by Burisma, or the plush job his son had with them, or the Billions of U.S. funds that company made disappear...
Trump is guilty of the worst crimes all right, exposing the corruption in D.C. firing those trying to cover it up, and the Democrats in their wisdom try to flip the blame onto him... for their own corruption, collusion, and criminal activity.
Trump may be uncouth, but the only thing he has really been guilty of as President is exposing all the corruption in D.C.
No, I think Trump is a traitor because he puts Russian's interests over that of America's while Russia is attacking us. It has nothing to do with whether I like what Trump has done or not. (There are one or two things he has done right, but for the most part he has done a terrible, terrible job.)
At the moment, it is 50/50 on who wants him impeached and convicted. Now that the testimony is going public, that will quickly move to 60/40 with rabid Trumpers being the only defenders.
He is killing America and needs to get rid of him fast.
I think the impeachment is meant to give Biden more airtime. It's not to impeach Trump but to give Biden more publicity then Warren or Sanders.
What makes you think that? Isn't Trump asking a foreign leader to help him win in 2020 enough reason to impeach?
Its the timing. They could have started to impeach Trump much earlier. Reasons enough I would say. But now with the elections coming up they use the impeachment to promote Biden.
I was personally opposed to doing it earlier. With the Wistleblower, we now have a smoking gun of Trump's crimes.
That's a weird viewpoint. Most of us really didn't want to see Trump impeached. FYI, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter. I wanted to see him defeated at the polls. I think that now to impeach him now would be in defiance of our Constitution.
"Most of us really didn't want to see Trump impeached."
That may be true for you personally, but for a great many (including some in these forums) I'm pretty sure that anything that gets him out of office is what is really wanted. Impeachment, assassination, natural death - whatever it takes. The hatred and vitriol being shown is beyond I would have thought possible.Dan, how is the vitriol surprising to you after 8 years of the Right showing us pictures of a dead Obama in a noose? To me, that is more than anything Trump has had to deal with.
Guess because I never saw Obama in a noose. Never a hint of it, and certainly not 8 years of persecution. Yes, the fringe right had really stupid things to say about his birth certificate, even after it was provided, but this time around it has been an unending stream, about anything, anything at all, that might convince a gullible public that he is unfit to even live.
I didn't think human beings could contain that much hatred and still function. I know I couldn't.Yeah, I did and many, many more things less bad.
This was easy to find - https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/anti … ti%20obamaI see lots of pictures of Obama, just pictures. I see signs decrying specific things like abortion and health care. I see a small percentage comparing him to Hitler, the devil, etc.
What I don't see is a barrage of lawsuits against him personally, constant claims of racism, misogyny, love of the KKK, etc. I don't see where anyone not bashing the president loves him as a hero and defends him simply because they don't bash him. I didn't see a stream of claims of malfeasance based on twisted and spun facts taken out of context. Perhaps it's because I spend too much on social media (and here), but I'm just not seeing the same kind of thing at all.
I get that politics raises the ire in some - people that cannot accept that others have different opinions. But the sheer hatred and mud being thrown today is beyond anything I ever saw in the past.Right wing media claimed Obama was a failure less than 90 days into his 8 years. They attempted to delegitimize him both as an American and as a President for the entire 8 years by questioning his citizenship. They showed us pictures of him dead, hanged.
Trump has been attacked with his own words and statements. Remember "grab them by the pu**y?" or have you forgotten that already?
Please save your victimization for friends and family. I'm not saying all of the attacks on Trump are justifiable, but most are self-inflicted.He was a failure...by the standards set by some. That is not the same as false accusations and years of investigation into specific wrongdoing. Or even accusations that were not investigated.
I mentioned that I never saw a single picture of Obama hanged. The list of pictures provided as "proof" did not, either.
Yep - I remember the "grab them" comment. Stupid, but illegal? I don't think so.
You may feel victimized, I don't. Except by the Democrats in congress who have turned the 2016 election into a circus of accusations they can't prove in an ill-gotten effort to remove a political figure from the office he was elected to. Remember the "Trump colluded with Russia to fix the election?"
Think about the "Boy who cried wolf", and apply it to this latest round of accusations.Why would anyone believe there was a ban on Muslims by President Donald Trump? That is a blatant lie. There were seven countries who had citizens banned from entering the United. Two of them were not even Muslim majority countries. That was North Korea and Venezuela. The other three, as well as the two non-Muslim majority countries, refused to acknowledge or follow the rules of entry as is required by every other country. Muslims from every other country could enter the United States with no problem. They were banned for 90 days, it was not a permanent ban.
Read all about the truth.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403Why would anyone believe there was a ban on Muslims by President Donald Trump?
Why, right? Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_nYQ6ItWM
IB, I'm sure you realize that video from 2015 means nothing. The fact is there was NO Muslim ban. NONE. If you want to know the truth read the link I provided from the BBC. So, there not being a Muslim ban is a fact.
Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it, It came to fruition with the ACA which was forced forced down our throat without a single GOP vote. It could not have been more divisive.
The fact the Supreme Court went along with it with the help of John Roberts is inexplicable. His tortured explanation had to be the most confusing ruling. Now 9 years after the fact, we conservatives was proven correct. The ACA did a lot of damage to our healthcare system and now we are talking about a single payer system like medicare for all.
Obama ran up our debt so high it is not even debated.
Along with the GOP leadership, they past every budget Obama asked for...some years even more than what he requested. That is why they lost all credibility with the American people. Trump was not their pick in 2016 but the American public voted for him sending a message to DC. Apparently, they did not receive that message or choose to ignore it. To this day, some Republicans, never Trumpers, like Romney is working to undermine Teump...how sad.This is how unattached to reality you are Jack, "Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it," - OBAMA was no progressive, progressives didn't like him. Why must you always distort things with untruths.
I try to consider you a rational person, but when you insist that it is great thing the 10s of millions of people remain uninsured; and that private insurance companies are allowed to hold life and death decisions over people because they have and they EXERCISE the power to deny treatment, to keep insurance, or to even deny insurance. That doesn't sound rational to me..
What also doesn't seem rational to me is that you prefer America (and the world) suffer a 1929-style depression (or worse) as opposed to the successful recovery that Obama achieved. I get the feeling you are one of those conservatives who believe that a Depression is good for the soul. You would have been very happy in the 1800s where we had one of those every 5 to 6 years, on average (no liberal economic theory back then, only conservative).
Also, the American people picked Clinton, not Trump. The Russians and the electoral college picked Trump.Jack: This is how you think. Liberals bad; Conservatives good. Jack this is not fencing. It's not about thrust and parry, which you admitted that you do in these forums.
This is about a con man that has conned his way into not only becoming president, but holding this most powerful office in the world, but also conning his supporters into believing him even though he has lied and misinformed over 10,000 times.
He is way in over his head. His cons are not working when they are put up against the law, the democracy and the republic of this country. His counter punches, never admitting guilt, and shifting the blame to others is catching up with him.
Yesterday, his tweets earned him an award of intimidating a witness who was sworn under oath. His holding back of key witnesses is an obstruction of justice. I don't care how he lived as a con man. It is not working for him now. This is what I told Wilderness yesterday:
Wilderness: It's not about what Yovonovitch witnessed. It is about why and how she was removed from her post. The reason she was removed from her post is because she served as an obstruction to Trump's grand plans of having Guilianni and his Hench men try to get Zelinsky to make a public announcement on CNN that the Biden's were corrupt in the Burisma deal or he wouldn't release the funding for the security aid to the Ukraine. He only released the funding after he was outed by the whistle blower.
She was told to take the first plane back to Washington and she arrived she was told by Sonland to say something great about Trump (kiss his ass), which she refused to do.
The irony is that Trump calls CNN the fake news and the enemy of the people, but yet he wants the President of Ukraine to go on CNN and tell the world that the Biden's are corrupt.
Jack, Trump is ignorant about ways of the government, protocols, and norms, and his deal making cons are not working for him. I'm sorry to tell you that, but that is reality.Jack: I'm very concerned. I just watched CNN where they had a composite of the Fox News prime time hosts including Hannity, Carlson, Ingram, and Limbaugh. All of them were discrediting the inquiry by ridiculing it with comments, like it's a shame, clown show, waste of time, she got her feelings hurt, and many other comments.
Fox News has the biggest viewership of all the news shows. What concerns me is all of their audience believe the crap that they are spewing, including Trump's rally audiences. If they becoming the biggest voting block Trump will get re-elected, not because he is qualified or deserves it. It is because his supporters have been brainwashed by him and Fox News."It's not about what Yovonovitch witnessed. It is about why and how she was removed from her post. " - AND THAT is what constitutes Abuse of Power, plain and simple.
"What concerns me is all of their audience believe the crap that they are spewing," SHOULD BE "What concerns me is all of their audience believe the LIES that they are spewing,
"He is way in over his head. His cons are not working when they are put up against the law, the democracy and the republic of this country. " - the ONLY reason Trump is still in power is a bunch of no-balls Republican Senators who put their political survival above the good of the country.
I suspect that for many of those Republicans who vote to keep the criminal in office and are up for reelection in 2020, their chances of getting reelected go down considerably. These would be:
Susan Collins (ME)
Joni Ernst (IA)
David Perdue (GA)
Johnny Isakson's seat (GA)
Cory Gardner (CO)
Martha McSally (AZ)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)
Steve Daines (MT)
Thom Tillis (NC)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Dems need only four of those.
Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it, It came to fruition with the ACA which was forced forced down our throat without a single GOP vote. It could not have been more divisive.
The fact the Supreme Court went along with it with the help of John Roberts is inexplicable. His tortured explanation had to be the most confusing ruling. Now 9 years after the fact, we conservatives was proven correct. The ACA did a lot of damage to our healthcare system and now we are talking about a single payer system like medicare for all.
Obama ran up our debt so high it is not even debated.
Along with the GOP leadership, they past every budget Obama asked for...some years even more than what he requested. That is why they lost all credibility with the American people. Trump was not their pick in 2016 but the American public voted for him sending a message to DC. Apparently, they did not receive that message or choose to ignore it. To this day, some Republicans, never Trumpers, like Romney is working to undermine Trump...how sad.
You don't see the barrage of lawsuits against Obama because he didn't break any laws. Trump is breaking them right and left, both civilly and criminally and people/prosecutors are suing him over them - As that should.
"But the sheer hatred and mud being thrown today is beyond anything I ever saw in the past." - THEN you weren't looking.
https://ravishly.com/ravs-radar/barack- … d-about-it
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics … index.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/smearing-obama/
https://thinkprogress.org/obama-smeared … ed77c3bb2/He sure is! Like the law against banning travel from some countries. Like the one shifting money to build a wall.
Or...at least that was the claim, until it went past the biased, partisan ninth circuit.This is a ridiculous statement. Banning travel on it's own is not illegal, but banning Muslims from coming into the country is. Given Trump's statements on that topic, he created his own problem.
And don't forget, Congress appropriates money for spending. So diverting funds that Congress did not approve is illegal. Again, he created his own problem. He had a majority Republican Congress. Where was the funding for the wall?
Agree 100%. TDS is real and cannot be explained by any other means. Rational smart people seems totally irrational when it comes to Trump.
They believe everything the media has created this caricature of Trump, not reality.
I tell people just one thing to think about.
If you believe Trump is a racist,
How did he survive Hollywood? In all these years of the Apprentice...number one rated show for so many years?
Compare that to Paula Deen who lost her cooking show with one comment.
The only possible answer is - Trump IS NOT A RACIST.Boy, you are really stretching, Jack.
What I am happy about is Trump has not gained one voter, except people like you who were too young to vote in 2016 (more than offset by people like you who have died since 2016); he has only lost voters. Instead of losing by 4 million votes, or whatever it was, it will be more like 6 million votes as well as getting creamed in the EC.
Here are the states sure to vote for Trump because they are full of people like you.
ID - 20
WY - 16
OK - 11
LA - 15
MS - 21
AL - 22
KY - 15
TN - 13
SC - 7
WV - 20
(the numbers represent the number of points Trump is positive) In every other state Trump has a negative approval rating or, if it is positive, it is
less than 5 points. For example:
ND - 1
SD - 1
TX - 2
Trump is a has been and hopefully will find himself behind bars in 2021 or 2022
Even the Russians won't be able to help him win this time like they did last time.
That is ridiculous. The right has never done to Obama what is being done to Trump. The other big difference is the media. The right was always marginalized with a handful of media outlets where as now, the main stream media is 90% negative on Trump. There is no equivalence here. If you think there is, you are living in an alternative universe.
The polls don't even come close to backing you up, Wilderness.
Having said that, as his "high crimes and misdemeanors" come out, those anti-impeachment sentiments will go away.
The amount of damage he is doing to our country is increasing exponentially with each new EO or rule change. I don't think even Pence would keep up that level of harm.What crime? In order to have impeachment, you must first identify an alleged crime.
Even then, it is a political process which is serious business. Despite all the evidence against Clinton, he was acquitted by the Senate and ended up more popular after surviving impeachment. His popularity leaving office was at 60%.Read your Constitution, Jack. An impeachment requires no crime. All it requires is abusing the oath of office, nothing more.
And Trump has so abused the oath of office (along with committing actual crimes), it is embarrassing.
BTW, as I pointed out previously, the Republicans couldn't even muster a majority to vote for the two Articles Clinton was tried on, lol. A bi-partisan group of Senators acquitted Clinton.
For Trump, at least two Republicans will probably vote to impeach - and I bet before the dust settles and even more damning facts come out, many more will vote to convict. Will it be the 20 no-balls Republican Senators needed to have justice done, maybe not, but I bet it will be close.
Another difference is that Clinton was impeached on lying to a grand jury about a personal matter. It is debatable whether that rose to the level of abuse of the oath of office - which reads, btw,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Lying to a grand jury about an affair does not seem to come under the heading of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - but hey, the Republicans were going to have their impeachment come hell or high water regardless.
But
1. Obstruction of Justice does
2. Obstruction of Congress does
3. Abuse of power does
4. Violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution does (although I doubt they will charge that)
5. And one I think he should be charged with, because it can be proved, is Treason (but I doubt they will)
You know what Trump's popularity is going to be after he is impeached? 39% to 43%, the same people who would support him even if he does shoot somebody in the back on 5th Avenue.
What crime? In order to have impeachment, you must first identify an alleged crime.
Even then, it is a political process which is serious business. Despite all the evidence against Clinton, he was acquitted by the Senate and ended up kore popular after surviving impeachment. His popularity leaving office was at 60%.
That is kinda of silly, Wilderness. It is true for me personally as well.
Yes, I don't like Trump, neither his policies nor the man. And I can't say that about ANY of his predecessors who held the office during my lifetime.
I just as soon that he did not receive a second term, but if you ever looked at what I had said, I opposed impeachment as rash, partisan and having the potential to backfire, in addition to the fact that the GOP dominated Senate would never remove him from office. So this is an exercise in futility.
I want to beat him soundly next year so there can be no question in the mind of Trump supporters and Rightwingers that they had lost, fair and square."I want to beat him soundly next year so there can be no question in the mind of Trump supporters and Rightwingers that they had lost, fair and square."
I understand what you're saying, Credence, but I don't think anything about a Trump-involved election will ever be "fair and square". I think he will always find some way to involve Russia, or Ukraine as in this case, or some other foreign country that does not have our best interests in mind.
I'm beginning to think the only legal way we will be rid of this incorrigible man is to impeach him because the reactions coming from the Trump supporters show that they are incorrigible, too. They are beyond reason. They don't have the slightest idea what it is like living under a totalitarian regime. I spent 10 days in the Soviet Union, and I DO.
I was touring with an education group over the New Year's holidays of 1989-90 during Perestroika. The individuals in our tour group were ready to come home, and we were relieved to be out of there. The pressure on us was unbelievable! We saw our guide, a very nice young Russian lady, pulled off our bus in front of us and almost get arrested by the KGB by something they perceived we had done. But we were innocent of those accusations. The fact that this man consorts with totalitarian regimes and perceives that he has the right to put our national security in jeopardy horrifies me.Yes, Ms. B, Trump by his very nature will work against the spirit of our laws even if he avoids violation of the letter of the law.
This foreign interference and influence in our elections not only taints Trump, but the Republican Party as willing accessories to the crime.
Polosi was wise to hold back on impeachment waiting for proper and indisputable evidence that cannot be dismissed as a mere "partisan attack". Trump is an eel and like any eel one needs to make sure you have it firmly in hand to prevent escape.
His supporters are incorrigible, who, in their misplaced loyalties, seek to make a way for Trump's escape regardless of what he does.
But, I want checkmate this time and to make sure there is no way to escape, like the situation for Nixon during the Summer of 1974.
There was NO question on either side of the isle that Nixon was guilty of high crimes and Misdemeanors and could be removed from office on that basis.
As a dumb as Trump is, Nancy knew that it was just a matter time when he would "cross the line" and even more of a firm case could be made against him, that was airtight.
The reasons for Clinton's impeachment were partisan, the circumstances surrounding Nixon's proposed impeachment were not. So, the reasons to start an impeachment inquiry in regard to Trump needs to be more like Nixon and less like Clinton.What America needs in 2020 is that Conservatives be beat soundly so that the thinking Republicans can take back their Party. I want a mix of Republicans and Democrats as they were constituted back at the end of Gerald Ford's or Jimmy Carter's day (minus the Southern conservative Democrats).
The damage Trump is doing to America, a lot of irreversible in the short- and medium-term, some of it irreversible in the long-term (climate change for example) is escalating, exponentially. We can't wait for an election, I fear.
I think I have to correct a word in my last sentence. When I read that statement, I couldn't believe that I'd said that until I realize that it was a typo. Change "defiance" to "defense". I meant to say "in defense of our Constitution." And after watching the hearing today, I really mean that. The man has smeared scat all over our Constitution, and Giuliani claims that he (Giuliani) is going to be seen as the hero!" What a duo!
MizBejjabbers, did you mean "Defense" rather than "Defiance"?
The evidence is growing that he used the Oval Office to coerce a foreign government into attacking his main 2020 rival.
The whistleblower says that 6 Trump officials witnessed these acts.
What would it take for you to support impeachment?Here's what's absolutely clear:
1. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, potentially impacting the 2020 election.
2. Officials in the White House tried to prevent the transcript from being in the public record and/or declassified, as required by law.
If you care about the future of this country, this information has to concern you.Thanks. I do care about the future of the country, and the information does concern me.
What concerns me more are the number of people who don't see anything wrong with it.Agreed. They literally do not believe Trump did anything wrong.
And, as Trump has said, if he murdered somebody in broad daylight, his supporters wouldn't care. In fact, if six people witnessed him murdering somebody in broad daylight, they'd just blame the DNC for setting it up.LOL. Yeah, I guess he was right. He can do anything he wants and still get votes.
Promisem, do you notice that there's not a single response to the original statement of fact that I made? A foreign government was asked to interfere in an election. And the White House tried to prevent the transcript from being public record, as required by law.
There are a lot of legal ways to investigate the Bidens if Trump is concerned. Somebody could ask some outside agency to do it certainly. An independent political group could do it. Lots of ways.Back to the socialist argument. Our military is the biggest socialist organization of them all and we all pay for it. Do you conservatives want to privatize it? How about the VA? Would you rather have mercenaries defending us?
Yep, I also noticed the lack of response.
It's hard for anyone to deny that Trump pressured a foreign government to dig up dirt on Biden -- his main rival in the 2020 election -- when Trump openly admits it.They also do not seem to understand that Trump's bargain was to benefit himself and his election, not the United States.
They're using the argument that Biden had a quid pro quo with Ukraine too, except that Biden's deal was on behalf of the country. If you could show that Biden was acting on behalf of himself or for his family's benefit, then you'd have a roughly equivalent situation.Nor do they understand that the Republicans are now proving how much they want Trump out of office.
The House will impeach Trump. The Senate will vote him guilty, thanks to some swing state Republicans who join the Democrats.
Trump will be gone soon. Pence will be President.Except for your "Pence will be President" statement, I hope you're right. Somehow I view him as the potentially "gentleman underhanded president." And I'm afraid he might just get elected on his on unless he, too, screws up.
After flipping through all three news channels last night and reading quite a few articles, two things seem pretty clear:
1. The Republicans are in hiding.
2. Trump's own staff is trying to kick him out.
Regarding Pence, he automatically becomes Prez if Trump is found guilty. So I'm afraid you'll be out of luck.I know, unless the Dems can find some way to implicate him. Something was mentioned about that yesterday on TV that he might be involved.
I hadn't heard that one, but I immediately found an article saying that Trump is pointing fingers at Pence.
Lordy, they're really turning on each other.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ … ls-1512771
There is always the chance (which is not zero) that Pence may go down with Trump and then Pelosi will be President.
It is going to take 19 more Republicans (assuming Romney will do the right thing) to dump Trump, I don't know if there are that many honest ones left in that body. Murkowski maybe. But I have my doubts even about Collins.
"What concerns me more are the number of people who don't see anything wrong with it." - And THAT is the problem with most on the Right - they see what Trump did as fine, just part of the job. That is why you hear know outcry from Republicans in Congress - because they don't recognize that soliciting a foreign gov't, using the power of the presidency, to help you remain in power is an Abuse Of Power - it is just a normal way of operating to them.
Who is the whistleblower? Why not reveal himself? (The death threat thing is complete BS. If he is anonymous, how could he receive death threats?) Why hold all the investigations privately (Volker)? Why not bring a formal impeachment initiative to the floor for a vote? Why? Because the truth will come out and reveal that this whole impeachment thing is a complete sham! You would think that the Democrats would come up with a more creative way of removing Trump. This impeachment thing will blow up in their faces. Sad. I love my country and these Democrat leaders are trashing the Constitution and rule of law in their attempts to destroy a duly elected president. Who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, Clinton, Nadler and others for promoting lies to the American people. Their time will come in this life, but most definitely in the next.
What a stupid question. And if you loved America, you wouldn't be supporting the worst thing that has ever happened to it save for the Civil War.
Worse only to the left...for the conservatives, it is God sent to save our country from going the way of Europe. Trump is the most consequential president in recent history. He has single handed stop the biased media, the progressive movement, the corruption in DC. Just his Supreme Court appointments and other judgeships will have positive influence on our country for decades to come.
I will give you that, Trump is the most consequential president in recent history. Unfortunately, it was to diminish America.
He has single-handedly divided America with his Hate Speech and actions.
He has created an whole industry of conservative FAKE NEWS
He has embarrassed America almost daily
He appointed two Supreme Court justices determined to take us back to the 1880s in terms of human rights, a place conservatives love - Trump will be coming after you after he is done with Mexicans and gays.Wow, what conservative justices wants to take America back to the 1800s?
You have a total miss understanding of what Conservatives are about.
We want the Constitution to be adhered to not activist judges changing our laws...The person responsible for dividing America is Barack Obama...he set race relations back 30 years...politicized the IRS, the FBI and the DOJ...and his lead from behind foreign policy was a disaster for the World and lead to the rise of ISIS and the Syria refugee crisis...
All of this and more is precisely why Trump won. The country just floundered out of control.
Yeah, it was the black guy's fault. And Trump is squeaky clean and so honest, why would any right winger not adore him?
You know what Randy, no need to bring race into it... I can guaranty you I never did.
There you go...the race card comes out every time a progressive looses an argument... how predictable.
Do you really want me to repost some of memes about Obama and Michelle depicted as apes by your ilk, Jack? And the birther stuff was okay with you, I suppose?
That is not OK with me and I would never use such language...but look at what your side including your self attacking Trump and his family...
It's not my fault Trump lies daily, Jack. He should be criticized when he's wrong or intentionally lying for his own gain. Do you agree or not?
Then, Jack, I suppose you would object to us attacking Hitler back in his day for his policies and actions.
What comparing Trump to Hitler again? When will you ever learn?
When you over reach like this, you just make yourself to be irrelevant.
You can criticize Trump all day long for policies you disagree...no one will stop you.
But when you make these connections...you are just insane.
Trump is not perfect but he is no racist and he is certainly no Hitler.The ONLY difference between Trump and Hitler is Trump has yet to start a holocaust. And given Trump's level of narcissism and psychopathy, I wouldn't put it past him given the chance.
Please tell me how you see the two's personality traits different from each other.
(BTW - that WASN'T comparing Trump to Hitler. It was comparing policies and acts. Both have very bad policies and actions so if you don't like us criticizing Trump for his hate speech and other bad acts, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want us to criticize Hitler for the same thing.)Not even close...
Hitler was a dictator, unelected and took power by force and enslaved his people and conducted the holocaust of 6 million jews...and started a world war...
Trump was duly elected President of the US, despite cheating by the Democrats and still trying to take him out with a phony impeachment.
Trump did not kill anyone though in my opinion some heads should roll in the deep state and in our intelligence community...FBI and DOJ...
If I was Trump, I would start investigations all day long into these people like Brennan and Klapper and Susan Rice...
Therefore, you comparison is so far off base, that is why you are the poster child for TDS.Come on Jack, please get your facts straight. Hitler was elected, much in the same fashion that Trump was - by a bunch of angry people ready to have the wool pulled over their eyes by a Demagogue.
Hitler usurped power in much the same fashion as Trump is trying to do today. He got his equivalent to Congress to pass an measures to give him "temporary" emergency powers which allowed him to become a dictator. He had malleable elected "congressmen" with no balls or similar right-wing beliefs, much like today's Republicans that did his bidding and a whole bunch of gullible followers willing to march with him into the hell called WW II - like Trump has today.
Also, you know as well as i do the only cheating was done by Trump and his Russian mentors.
Or how about the significant increase in hate crimes because a black president was elected or the resurgence of white supremacists, KKK, Nazis and the like which is gaining steam under Trump's hate speech.
The country was GREAT until Trump destroyed it. Although I must admit the conservative court was starting to take us back to the bad old days of the 1950s.
As I said I felt the country floundered out of control under Obama. Obama is the biggest reason Trump won. He could be set out on a podium and give a nice speech. I am sure he got A+ in every one of his speech classes. He just did not have what it takes to solve problems. He let a bunch of crooks use him like a puppet. he did nothing, he can claim no real accomplishments. As I said the country jut floundered.
Sharlee:
The sentence I hear most from well-meaning, conservative friends since President Trump’s election is this: “We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.”
Fair enough. Let’s take a look.
The day Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had almost tripled.
General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $8o billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.
While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization had successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.
Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
He drew down the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000, and increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He launched a program called Opening Doors which, since 2010, has led to a 47 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans.
He set a record 73 straight months of private-sector job growth.
Due to Obama’s regulatory policies, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.
He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for unequal pay.
His Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, creating thousands of miles of trails and protecting over 1,000 miles of rivers.
He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent in 2016.
For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.
Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.
All this, even as our own Mitch McConnell famously asserted that his singular mission would be to block anything President Obama tried to do.
While Obama failed on his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that prison’s population decreased from 242 to around 50.
He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting groundbreaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.
Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or raise interest rates without advance notice.
Most years, Obama threw a 4th of July party for military families. He held babies, played games with children, served barbecue, and led the singing of “Happy Birthday” to his daughter Malia, who was born on July 4.
Welfare spending was down: for every 100 poor families, just 24 receive cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996.
Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”
Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns.
He sang Amazing Grace, spontaneously, at the altar.
He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered? If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish: may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more.
What are the great accomplishments that Trump has done so far?Well Damn Mike! There are several points of your Obama defense I would argue with, but . . .
"Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”
Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns."
Taken overall, that was a fine and coherent comment.
^5
GAI could argue most of your points. I have no will or want to. I guess I will just agree to disagree. As I said he was a fine speaker, but he always flew under the radar. I think he is a kind human being that did his best. I never said we suffered under Obama. I said we floundered.
"As I said I felt the country floundered out of control under Obama. Obama is the biggest reason Trump won. He could be set out on a podium and give a nice speech. I am sure he got A+ in every one of his speech classes. He just did not have what it takes to solve problems. He let a bunch of crooks use him like a puppet. he did nothing, he can claim no real accomplishments. As I said the country just floundered."Another vague non-answer. And no you can't refute them, simply disagree for some unknown reason. Typical..
I don't think I could have been more clear about my feelings in regard to Obama?
I have no will to dispute anyone on varying opinions. It's like beating a dead horse. I certainly have no reason to insult anyone for their opinion or doI think I should beat anyone over the head with mine.
There are only three reasons Trump won:
1. Clinton's terrible campaigning (which wasn't enough in of itself but let Trump get close)
2. James Comey's screw-up in notifying Congress he reopened (unnecessarily as it turned out) the Clinton email investigation. By the time he fixed his error, the polls had already tightened up.
3. The MASSIVE propaganda campaign by the Russians on behalf of Trump. Trump didn't win, the Russians did and now he is returning the favor.Despite the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ, Trump won in 2016 because the voters were sick and tired of Washington insiders who say one thing and do the opposite once in office.
They voted for a non-politican, a businessman and a patriot who wants to put America first.
Trump also won because many Democrats voted for him...though they would not admit it or tell the pollsters.Jack, no Trump wants to put "Trump" first. He is Mr. Wrong in every aspect regarding the temperament of the sort fit for being President.
I would wager, particularely in this coming election season that his "luck" will have ran out.Face it Jack, the only Corruption is on the part of your hero, TraitorTrump.
You are correct, he did secure just enough electoral votes to technically win. It just took Comey and the Russians to do it. He clearly didn't do it on his own.
Yes, you voted for a non-politician but you also voted for a bankrupt many times over businessman (why do you like failure?), and Trump is the furthest thing from a patriot this nation has seen in a long time. He is a coward that dodged the draft, abused Gold-Star families, put our soldiers in the way of Turkish artillery, trashes every general he has hired and many he has not.
Get a grip on reality Jack. You won't feel so guilty about having to lie to support this demagogue.Just enough electoral votes?
Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227. Fact... That's what I would consider a LANDSLIDE Move on. Ready yourself for 2020. I guess you can use the Ukrainians this time around.
Actually Trump is one of the top three in our history to win the most electoral votes. FACT
Which president won the most electoral votes in a single election?
Comparative table of elections
Democratic-Republican · DR Democratic · D Republican · R
Election Winner and party Electoral College
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233/401
2000 George W. Bush 271/538
2016 Donald Trump 304/538
Facts can be hard at times to except, but facts are facts. And one just saying something just dos not change a fact.
I predict he will beat his 304 in 2020. You know with the help of, whoever...So you, along with Trump, do not care where his help comes from? How patriotic....
This was meant to be a sarcastic joke. I was responding to the comment below posted by My Esoteric.
"There are only three reasons Trump won:
1. Clinton's terrible campaigning (which wasn't enough in of itself but let Trump get close)
2. James Comey's screw-up in notifying Congress he reopened (unnecessarily as it turned out) the Clinton email investigation. By the time he fixed his error, the polls had already tightened up.
3. The MASSIVE propaganda campaign by the Russians on behalf of Trump. Trump didn't win, the Russians did and now he is returning the favor."
Just pointed out facts, and yes got snarky. Snarkiness is not a tool only libearla here are allowed to use. Snarky begets snarky.
Come on Sharlee, give ALL of the facts with a real comparable table using percentage of electoral votes.
Trump 2016 - 306 (56.9%) - Lost the popular vote
Obama 2012 - 332 (61.7%)
Obama 2008 - 365 (67.8%)
Bush 2004 - 286 (53.3%)
Bush 2000 - 271 (50.5%) - Lost the popular vote
Clinton 1996 - 379 (70.4%)
Clinton 1992 - 370 (68.8)
Bush 1988 - 426 (79.3%)
Reagan 1984 - 525 (97.6%)
Reagan 1980 - 489 (90.9%)
Carter 1976 - 297 (55.3%)
Nixon 1972 - 520 (96.8%)
Nixon 1968 - 301 (55.9%)
Johnson 1964 - 486 (90.3%)
Kennedy 1960 - 303 (56.4%)
Harrison 1888 - 233 (58.1%)
As you can clearly see, Trump as an also ran as far as electoral college wins go.
Facts matter.So what’s your point.
We don’t elect President by popular vote, and for a very good reason.
If we did, Al Gore would have been President.
Let’s see 2020 what the electoral breakdown will be before making your case against Trump.The point was Jack, that Sharlee and all other Trump supporters (and Trump) say he won by a landslide. That is just another conservative lie - as you can see.
Just think how much better the world would have been if Gore had been elected. No Iraq war, no stupid tax cuts for the rich, and assuming 9/11 still happened - a focused attack on terror and Afghanistan and not the mishmash of things Bush did if throwing away lives and treasure for no good reason.
(I do agree, however, that the popular vote is still not a good way either. They need to go back to the original intent of the electoral college and take the politics out of picking electors like the founders wanted)
Name one decision the conservative court ruled that took us back to the 1950s...
I am glad you asked!
1. Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 - 2013. - Eviscerated the Voting Rights Act which put teeth in the 15th Amendment. Immediately after passage, conservative states started passing laws to restrict voting rights.
2. United States v. Morrison :: 529 U.S. 598 (2000) - Effectively neutered the Violence Against Women Act
3. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) - Restricted scope of Civil Rights Act
There are three, there are dozens more if you want me to retrieve them.Really, to the 1950’s...?
You gotta be kidding.
The really one you care about is abortion rights. Right after the appointment of Kavanaugh to the Supreme court, CNN legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin predicted Roe v. Wade would be reversed.
It was not...he was a pant on fire kind of guy...and never apologized.What are you talking about, Jack. It must be a different comment.
Boy, you sure know how to project Trump's failures on others. That wasn't Obama who did that, it is Trump who is DOING that now.
No, I know exactly what conservatives are all about - stopping society from moving forward.
Conservatives Opposed the 13th Amendment
Conservatives Opposed the 14th Amendment - which the conservative Supreme Court eviscerated between 1870 and 1930
Conservative Opposed the 15th Amendment - which the conservative Supreme Court eviscerated between 1870 and 1930
Conservatives Opposed the 19th Amendment - fortunately, like the 13th Amendment, they weren't able to weaken it.
Conservatives Opposed the Civil Rights Act - and the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have weakened.
Conservatives Opposed the Voting Rights Act - and the Roberts Court has weakened.
Conservatives Oppose a woman's right to chose
Conservatives Oppose gay marriage, in fact they simply oppose gays
Conservatives Oppose anything that has to do with moving the rights of humans forward.Conservative is a dirty word when ever progress is even thought about.
They are inherently against equality preferring privilege for a few to the detriment of the many. The world works better when everyone " stays in their respective places". Fundamentally racist and misogynist they expend a great deal of energy trying to convince you otherwise.
They are fundamentally insecure, thinking that their brandishing of firearms is a natural passage of manhood, such primitive thinking.... I never could relate to that and I wonder why? They are trying to pass strange laws in Florida now reverting us back to the days of Bat Materson and Wild Bild Hickok. Geez, I stop thinking like that while I was in my teens.
They are hypocrites of the highest order with their phony Evangelical advocacy.
The Conservatives and their agenda have never been my friend, they trot out Uncle Thomases and Aunt Jemimas as false fronts. But WE have always known what they have always been all about.
From Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan and now Donald Trump, I would have to be a sado-masochist to support anything Republican/conservative as defined today. NEVER...
As far as I am concerned, they get nothing from me but my contempt and determination to vote even the GOP candidate for dog catcher out of office.
When I read a little about the biography of the late William Buckley and found that he attempted to provide an intellectual foundation to conservatism advocating for much of the points I mentioned above, I was astonished. It was like spritzing Chanel No. 5 on a heap of excrement. He acknowledged his erroneous thinking later in life after much of the damage that he contributed to was done.You are one of those being fooled by the liberal media. Conservatives have done more to help the poor and disadvantages then any other groups. Under Trump, he has improved the economic condition of all people across the board including hispanics and blacks and asians...
It is because of the success of conservative policies.
Under Obama, he spent billions to help the poor by way of increasing entitlements and where has that lead? More despair...
Under Trump, he promoted jobs and trade and gave people a chance to work and take care of their families and the result is no less than stunning.
These are real policy differences that lead to results.And who are You being fooled by Jack? Trump, his ilk and his policies have us all at each other's throat, so don't you dare go blaming Obama.
Obama would be contentious in the conservative /right-wingers eye solely because he was black, there need not be another reason.
The man that you support is stupid with the subtlety and finesse of a busted chain saw. The election of Liz Warren will be what the Right will deserve in response. We progressives will see him to the door in 2021 and he had better go quietly.
I don't know who you are trying to fool, Jack, regarding conservatives helping everybody. You need to be aware that I certainly was not born yesterday and my experiences say otherwise.You are right Credence. It is NOT in the Conservatives DNA to help ANYBODY but themselves and those close to them.
Studies consistently show that while Conservatives do have empathy, it DOES NOT extend beyond the immediate family and friends. Liberals (and this is partly why they are liberals) on the other hand show lots of empathy even to strangers.
It is that lack of outside empathy that makes it natural for Conservatives to look down on the poor or, back in the old days, oppose the Civil Rights Act or back in the even older days, oppose the 13th Amendment.
It is also this lack of empathy that leads to the Conservative's belief in a hierarchical society where the rich are naturally better than the poor, that men naturally have higher standing than women, and why whites naturally have more rights than minorities.Thanks for the response, Esoteric
The GOP has always been engaged in a massive deception. They have always been advocates for the One Percent. How do they find people stupid enough to vote for them among the remaining 99 percent? But looking at just this forum alone, obviously they have been successful.
So what does the GOP do?
Advocate on phony cultural issues to attempt to get the indolent to find common ground over nothing. As the GOP are hypocrites in regard to most of these so called issues when called out on them. ( Trump and family values?)
Gin up racial resentment, just as Trump does. His dopey followers are quick to blame minorities and immigrants for their own failed lives rather than focus on the policies that are responsible that they consistently vote for. An old bait and switch trick.
This idea of people having unearned privileges and advantages in Government or in the Economy must end. These hierarchal arrangements must be eliminated. Warren and Sanders are the only candidates that speak my language, leveling the playing field and taking a sincere effort to deal with the inequity that results.
It is a tall order, but I know that Warren has the knowledge, experience and more importantly the fervent desire to get started on it. Wall Street considers her as a mortal enemy, threatening the very foundations responsible as to why we are having the problems we are having. You could not have a better endorsement in my opinion.
I say Conservatism in the Era of Trump be damned. In reference to your last paragraph, we will never have peace with folks having the attitudes and policy positions resulting that you've mention...NEVER
While the conservatives are SO worried about Socialism, I find the slow return of the American Economy to a feudalistic arrangement far more threatening.
But, again, that is just my own humble opinion.
You are mistaken. Conservatives believe that it takes time for major changes to happen. When you rush things before the people are ready, bad things happen. Progressives, on the other hand, want everything to happen instantaneously and if they can’t convince the people to vote for it, they use activist judges to legislate from the bench.
The prime example of this is abortion right.
he has kept us safe
He has built our economy
He has given respect to our Military
He has made fair trade agreements
He has given citizens the pride of being able to work
He has put rogue nations on notice. We don't put up with atrocities...
He got prison reform
He put tax dollars back in many of our pockets
He has all but fixed the immigration problem,
Need I go on?He has made the America much more dangerous, especially for minorities and Jews.
He has maintained our economy, and it is about to collapse around him
We already had respect for our Military - he did nothing.
He has made NO trade agreements, fair or otherwise
We already have pride in working, he has made things worse.
Yeah, like France, England, Germany, NATO. He embraces Russia, Syria, Turkey, and North Korea. He is enabling the massacre of Kurds.
His son-in-law, the Democrats, and some Republicans got prison reform
He has put tax dollars in the Rich's pockets, not yours or mine
He has created chaos where there was no real immigration problem.
Don't bother going on as there is nothing real you can find.
Right on minstrel - let’s review what is really happening
https://youtu.be/ND40ur07Eyo
Finally, a sane voice here on this forum...
This talk of impeachment is TDS on steroid.
I hope you guys learn a lesson and when Trump is elected with 40 states, I hope you come to your senses and throw the main stream media under the bus, where they belong.
So you're okay with Trump breaking his oath of office, but not with Biden running for POTUS? And who the heck is "they"? Let me guess...the Deep State!
They is the republican party who will probably want a conservative democrat to win.
I’m not okay with Trump breaking his oath Randy. I’m not ok with a pussy grabbing Trump at all.
I’m just sceptical about the impeachment.
To be honest I don't think he wants a second term in office himself. He has got what he wanted, lower taxes. Lots of personal deals etc.
He was never up for the job, and he knows it. The only reason he would want to go for the second term is because he’s an attention seeker junky.Sorry, correction.
With They I meant the top of the democrats who probably want a conservative democrat to win.Peter, he probably does not want a second term as his personality and style will just make 4 more years problematic. He simply does not have the temperament for the job once he understands that the Presidency is a far more demanding and skillful office than just being a CEO where he can do as he likes.
second correction. Changed my mind. This definitely looks like smoking gun and not just an election strategy.
Read the book on The United States of Trump by O’Reilly and you will know exactly what Trump is about. The info is in plain sight. Why guess or make up stuff about someone you hate?
That's you injecting into a conversation what was not there.
You keep supporting corrupt politicians like Clinton and Biden and you have a surprise coming in 2020 if Biden is what the DNC rolls out as their nominee.And what is corrupt about Clinton and Biden in the same way that Trump is truly corrupt??
"It's not to impeach Trump"
You must be from Florida...
The Whistleblower details are now in front of the House Intelligence committee. While still classified, those who read them say it is "disturbing" and does not contradict what we already know.
The evidence is now all out there and it is Terrible.
Who cares if they conjur up fifty whistle blowers from every corner of the swamp? Trump released the transcript. It makes all anonymous whistleblowers irrelevant. We already have the conversation. Let them study it if they doctored up the conversation. I don't think so. It would be all over the news if that happened. It's the word for word transcript between Trump and the Ukrainian President. Stop the bullshit impeachment and win honestly on election day! Oh yeah, the Democrats have either leftists or crooks running for office. They will definitely lose if they go the honest route!
It helps the conversation to get your facts straight. Trump DID NOT release the "transcript" - we all would like to see it to determine if the Summary he released is accurate. Even so, the Summary clearly shows he broke the law and abused his power.
The impeachment must go on to protect the Constitution from this criminal YOU and the Russians put into office.
FOUR DAYS LATER (From CNN)
"We are seeing both in real time, with the President's remarks and also through documentary evidence, his corruption," Bernstein told CNN's Brooke Baldwin on Thursday.
The complaint, released on Thursday, alleges that Trump abused his official powers "to solicit interference" from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election, and that the White House took steps to cover it up.
Bernstein pointed to Trump's subsequent comments on how spies were dealt with differently in the old days in referencing who provided key information to the whistleblower as a display of "his temperament in an extreme, perhaps even greater than we've ever seen before."
"We're watching, too, an unraveling in front of us, both factually and also temperamentally, in terms of the conduct of the President of the United States," Bernstein said.
"And why?" he added. "Well, partly because the President of the United States recognizes that there is in this whistleblower's documents terrible evidence of the President's corruption.""- Donald Trump is facing possible impeachment because of breaking Whistleblower law and the abuse of power associated with it. Those are the reasons Nancy Pelosi gave to start the impeachment hearings."
Impeachment hearings? She called for an impeachment inquiry. So not even the first step has been taken as of yet.
At any rate at th end of it all, the Senate would end the impeachment of Trump with a quick vote. Just not sure why one could believe differently unless there is a new incriminating first-hand allegation, Congress is going on secondhand info. If it ever made it before the Chief Justice of the Supreme court, he would not even hear it due to it being second hand. After all, is said and done it would be up to the Senate
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-d … hUL1WA0IJ/
It would be more prudent for the Dem's to stop all the crazy and make an effort to beat Trump at the ballot box... Otherwise, they have little chance of seeing the inside of the White House. All these investigations and their unwillingness to not do anything else in regards to helping solve America's problems. Leaving them to look foolish and incapable of doing their job.
There one chance is to wake up and find a candidate that has some idea's the general population wants to hear. They need to put forth a sensible agenda for America. At this point, they are one scary bunch.Yes, the #NoBallsGOP in the Senate will probably let the crook go, but his assault on our Constitution is so egregious, America must try to hold him accountable.
BTW, 25% of Real @GOP NOW support the inquiry.The Dem's are in a bad spot. They need to have a look at the party, and as I said try to beat Trump at the polls with a candidate that the majority of American's can recognize an America agenda. Not a path to socialism. Not sure why the Dem's are headed down that path? Seems like they have not realized what it has brought to the countries that are socialist and ones that have failed badly with socialism...
The Dems are headed down this path because they love America and our Constitution; they have had enough of a deranged crook leading the country and smearing our image in the eyes of the world.
Makes sense to me.Sharlee: Mitch McConnell just announced that if the house impeaches Trump, the senate will hold a trial. If they can get enough votes from the senate, Trump is toast.
Your interpretation of socialism is from the old school of communism where the means of production is controlled by the central government and everyone has to share the labor and goods including housing.
The left are advocating for democratic socialism which is horse of another color. Their agenda includes health care for all and tuition free college education. They do not want to destroy our form of capitalism. However, in order to fund these programs, they want the super wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share in taxes. There is currently a huge inequality in terms of what the wealthy and corporations pay in taxes and they just want the playing field to be made more level. Democratic socialism is not even close to what Marx and Lenin's type of communism is about. That is right wing propaganda that they want you to buy into by using fear of communism.Yes, it's a fact if the senate majority vote to impeach Trump would be out. I predict this will never come about. I certainly will be willing to wear egg on my fact if I am wrong.
In regards to what you call " democratic socialism. one we can't afford it, two, capitalism would not survive under the Dem's idea's make the rich pay for the poor. Sorry, what would happen all the cash would move on to countries where they can continue making cash. We are very far apart in our opinion of the rich supporting the poor... It would be a futile conversation for us to discuss any form of socialism. I am a pure capitalist and proudly admit it.Sharlee: Then you are against paying any form of taxes because taxes are a form of socialism. Do you approve of Trump's 32 billion in tariffs that are payed by our importers, not the Chinese even though Trump says the Chinese are paying for those tariffs?
If that were the case why is he subsidizes farmers with our tax money, which is also a form of socialism? Do you approve of that? Socialism has been with this country since the beginning. What do you think the military and the VA are? They are social programs and they exist along with capitalism.
I could go on and and on about how this country is both capitalistic and socialistic, but I'm not going to. Just think about all the social programs we now have in this country that exists along with capitalism.Sharlee: I just found this. It may help you in understanding what socialism is in our country.
Methinks, Sharlee doesn't mind paying welfare to farmers because Trump says so. She just doesn't like helping people who are suffering from no fault of their own.
Shar doesn't care as long as Trump sez it's so.....
"BTW, 25% of Real @GOP NOW support the inquiry."
I had not heard this. Do you have a resource?Various polls show Republican support for impeachment ranging from 10% to 16% versus about 5% from earlier in the year.
I have done a bit of research, and yes I see the numbers are showing more support for impeachment. Time will tell... I believe congress does need to hear the people and vote to impeach. They need to get on with the procedure. It would be not only the prudent thing to do but the fir thing to do. Bring charges forward, this will give both sides ample opportunity to present their case.
You believe that popular consensus of the people should be the distinguishing factor in impeachment, rather than the Constitution and law?
You apparently have lots of company.Actually, you seem to believe that breaking the law is not a reason to impeach a President.
I must further explain my sentiment. I am a pro vote to move this problem along. I have expressed this sentiment on other threads here on HP. At this point, II do not think that the Senate would vote to impeach the president. I have very good faith that Chief Justice Roberts will protect our Constitution. But, it's time to move on and make an attempt to find facts. Let each side be heard. Facts will work to ultimately satisfy all of us...
Yes, the people should be heard. Although, please consider everyone that cooperates in polling have their own reasons for wanting the Dem's to proceed with an impeachment proceeding. Perhaps one such reason is to see our Constitution work as it was created to work."But, it's time to move on and make an attempt to find facts. Let each side be heard. Facts will work to ultimately satisfy all of us..."
If facts are what is desired, what is to be gained by polling the population? Most assuredly the man in the street knows nothing, so what is the purpose?
Is it to convince legislators to vote as the polls say the people want regardless of those desired facts? What else could be the reason to take public opinion in a purely legal proceeding?No, just look at the law. Trump broke the law mutliple times. That's more than enough to impeach him.
But both Barr and Trump believe Trump's above the law, Scott. And apparently, so do his supporters...
Randy, I hate to say this... But it is apparent the congress feels the same way. As of today no impeachment movement. It is up o Congress to hold the president accountable if he committed any form of impeachable crime or misdemeanor.
TODAY --Trump made a statement that unless an impeachment vote o the inquiry is taken the White House will not cooperate with any of their demands. This just does not sound like a guilty man? It does sound like a man that ants to clear his name of the latest accusation. It well appears he wants to move on from this and not let the Dem's drag this kind of politicking on any longer. He certainly is calling their bluff.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820997/ … hment-vote
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whi … rmal-vote/"Randy, I hate to say this... But it is apparent the congress feels the same way." - YOU SAY with absolutely no proof, just like your hero does - he just makes things up and you are cool with that. Very SAD.
EVEN worse for Trump, the American public is getting on board with impeaching him much faster (thanks to his own help) than I thought possible.
I actually agree with Trump now. The Ds have enough hard proof now on Trump I think they should go ahead and vote on impeachment. They should throw in counts of obstruction of Congress for Barr and Pompeo while they are at it.
Personally, I think the Ds need to time it such that the Republicans in the Senate have to vote on it say around March or April so that it is fresh in every voter's mind how much these hypocrites value Trump over America.
With any luck, we can go back to having real Republicans in office rather than these pretend ones that are there now.
You mean in your opinion your interpretation of what you read proves Pres. Trump broke the law, right?
Even if pundits or scholars you respect offer their similar opinions, isn't that still what your "proof" is; interpretations and opinions?
It is my opinion that the recently revealed text messages support the president's contentions, (on the face of things), that he is only concerned about corruption. (Wait! I know that is a stretch but in realm of interpretations, that is what they say to me).
Of course, my interpretations and opinions are based on the requirement that the president's actions must be an effort to influence the 2020 election--and they may turn out to be so--but I see no proof of that yet.
GANo, I have already explained it. The actions of the White House lawyers and Trump aides show that he broke they law.
The proof is in the doctored transcription and especially the fact that they tried to hide it, among other evidence..
As I said before, you are not a lawyer and neither am I. But they are.
"I know that is a stretch..." That admission is revealing but not surprising.Okay promisem, I give in. Go ahead and show me your proof that the White House lawyers and Trump aides broke the law by putting the information on a more secure server to hide it.
Show me your proof that an explanation that the information was moved to prevent casual access in an effort to plug leaks is totally out of the question.
I admit and have acknowledged that the call memorandum was just that, and not a true transcript, but I would welcome seeing your proof that it is "doctored" transcription. (am I wrong that your use of "doctored" usually infers a negative meaning, as in purposeful deceit?)
By calling it a stretch I was inferring it might take an effort to believe it. What is so revealing to you about that statement? Just what did it reveal?
GA"Okay promisem, I give in. Go ahead and show me your proof that the White House lawyers and Trump aides broke the law by putting the information on a more secure server to hide it." - Actually, it is, GA as I am well aware.
There are multiple regulations regarding misuse of classified systems. Had I done it in my job with the AF, I would at least have been fired if not tossed in jail.
One of the jobs I held with the AF for many years straddled the line between classified and non-classified systems. The system I managed was unclassified but because of the information it contained, I had to periodically do a review to make sure it hadn't crossed the line into the classified realm.
As a consequence, I became very familiar with the rules involving classified systems and if, which seems to be the case, Trump had unclassified data put on a secure system for non-national security reasons, he broke the laws the regulations I had to follow are based on.That makes sense to me Scott. But now I have the questions of whether there was any information in the call transcripts that could be considered classified, and, do we know that someone with authority to authorize the use of the classified servers did not give such authorization?
I don't know the answers to those questions and I am not promoting either as fact. I would also guess that the folks making the claims of law-breaking don't know either.
If the answer to those questions was "no," then it can be accurately and factually said that laws were broken, but without those answers, what can be said is only opinion and assumption.
Do you know those answers? Do you think anyone in this forum does? I suspect none do. So without knowing that, are you confident enough to proclaim it a fact that laws were broken?
GASix high-level government witnesses seem to think that laws were broken, which is why we are having an impeachment inquiry.
And there you go promisem . . . a statement I don't have a problem with:
"Six high-level government witnesses seem to think that laws were broken . . ."
Do you now see the difference between that statement and the statements of yours that I have challenged?
GAYou have caught me in nothing more than a poor choice of words in a different context.
You have repeatedly said that everything I posted is only my opinion and not fact, including the statements of the witnesses to the inspector general.
I challenge you to answer my most recent post:
"Trump admitting that he asked, pushed or encouraged the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is an opinion and not a fact? Six witnesses interviewed by the inspector general is an opinion and not a fact?"
Your defense of Trump even puts you to the right of Tucker Carlson. That's awfully far right.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4645 … raine-call"You have repeatedly said that everything I posted is only my opinion and not fact, including the statements of the witnesses to the inspector general."
I don't think you can back up that claim promisem. Now, if you had said "most," then you might have had me.
Which was your "poor choice of words; that those six witnesses said "they think" or that they said he unequivocably did?
GA
GA, I don't "Know" the sun is going to come up tomorrow (which is the kind of proof you are asking for), but I do know there is a very high probability that it will.
All of the circumstantial evidence that we know to be true points to a misuse of a classified system. The strongest of which is Trump and his mouthpieces haven't claimed there was classified information in that call (beyond the Confidential level which does not go on those systems).
Bottom line though is I trust our intelligence community over a pathologically lying president.I don't think my point is quite as restrictive as your "sun" analogy My Esoteric, but I do want it to demand more than interpretation and opinion to qualify as fact.
Relative to this "classified systems" debate, it is the one I am most inclined to favor Pres. Trump on.
Multiple sources I looked at, (NPR, Politico, and the NYT among them), made two common points. One was that the impetus for the decision was that Pres. Trump wanted to contain the leaks of his confidential calls to other leaders. I think that is a reasonable and valid desire.
The second point was that the decision to use the classified servers was made and approved by the National Security Council lawyers. I think that even if some would say that the NSC lawyers were pressured into their decision, I don't think they would have recommended an action that was obviously illegal. I still believe the legal opinion of the NSC lawyers allows the plausible belief that Trump was not intentionally breaking a law and he was not trying to hide, (cover-up?), the information.
With those two thoughts in mind, it makes sense to me that his motive was to restrict casual access, not all access. I do not believe this is anything like Nixon's secret recording system and tapes.
You say you " trust our intelligence community over a pathologically lying president." Do you include the NSC as part of the intelligence community?
GA
I do agree with you, however, the "summary" was not doctored. Had it been, it wouldn't have shown so clearly that Trump was breaking the law with his ask (favor) of Z.
You mean it looks like, and you think, he was breaking the law, right? Don't you need some evidence it involved election interference for it to be illegal?
GANo, I don't mean "looks like". Trump's summary (and Trump's words to the press as well as Z saying he didn't want to get involved in our election) was clear he asked a foreign gov't to interfere on his behalf in our 2020 election. All one has to do is apply the mind that God gave us.
You mean to apply the anti-Trump mind that God gave you right? After all, there are other, seemingly sensible and intelligent, minds that disagree with you.
There is also the fact that there is no unequivocal, non-interpretive, non-circumstantial evidence to support what your God-given mind tells you.
I won't ask you to prove your claim because I don't think you can, (and you know that I have also examined - not just read, the same text messages and memorandum that you have).
I think that the best you can do is present a series of dots to be connected, with no proof that the lines you drew to connect them are the only possible connection.
GA
So let me see if I have this straight. Trump wants to make a deal with Pelosi where he will not turn over the documents they requested until after they impeach him. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? What good does it do to get the documents that would have evidence to impeach him after he has already been impeached by the house? Am I missing something?
Yes, he is demanding that they vote to begin the impeachment process, not actually impeach him first.
If there is any truth to what I heard . . . The president and Republicans want that official vote because then they would have the same legal powers, (issue subpoenas, etc.), to mount their defense that the Democrats now have to investigate their accusations.
GA.There is no truth to it and in fact it's a dangerous step.
This stage is no different than a prosecutor compiling evidence to decide if charges are necessary. There is no defense to mount at this time.
Trump wants to get access to the people who are providing the information to harrass, threaten and intimidate them to stop the entire impeachment process.
It's yet another scumbag attack on the Constitution."There is no defense to mount at this time."
You might be right, I will wait and see what else comes out about this.
In the meantime, the Democrats have carte blanche to conduct their investigation in the court of public opinion without the accused having any voice at all in what the public hears.
In the meantime, the Democrat's investigation news will have free reign to convince the public that their accusations are true--simply because they make them public news.
In the meantime, the accused are denied the authority to provide similarly authoritative counterpoints in that court of public opinion.
By the time we get past all those "meantimes" and into the real impeachment process, the public will have been convinced by a one-sided presentation of "facts."
Does that sound about right to you?
GAOne-sided ? Give us another side of Trump wanting to have Biden's son investigated, Gus. Do you have your own spin as to why he should not be impeached?
Do you have proof Randy? Proof that the claim of investigating corruption is a lie and his efforts are all about harming Joe Biden in his presidential election candidacy?
Although not related to your "impeached" question, do you consider the following to be spin:
Pres. Trump privately and publically stated/states his intentions were/are corruption-related, not election-related. (look promisem, I am going to use that "stretch to believe" qualifier again) Although that might be a stretch to believe.
The newly released text messages, (Envoys & Ambassadors?), clearly say--not inferred or read-between-the-lines:
"The president has made it crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind"
". . . assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 . . ."
I am not offering those quotes as "proof" of anything, but I do think they could validate Trump's claim more than they validate the charges of election interference.
What similar explicit statements do you have that prove it is all about election interference?
ps. I will leave the "spin" to other folks.
GAI'm stunned that you can't see what's wrong with the President of the United States pressuring other countries to destroy his 2020 political rival.
Especially when he had more than 2 years to make it an issue and doesn't say a word until now.Actually, GA, I do have to ask now (I thought I knew the answer), but You Do think it is illegal for a president to ask for foreign help to win his next election don't you??
It doesn't make any difference if you think he is actually doing that or not, what I am asking is if YOU think that activity is wrong and illegal.I am late to this discussion but it appears all of you have been mislead by Adam Schiff. There is no whistleblower. It was manufactured by the Democrats and the Intelligence community to get Trump.
He actually met and talked with this rogue CIA intelligence official and help him write the complaint. In addition, it appears he is friendly with John Brennan, another one of Obama appointment to the deep state.Of course I think it is illegal for a president to ask for foreign help to win his next election Scott.
GAOK, good, I was beginning to wonder.
So, what proof do you need beyond Trump's summary, the texts, and our intelligence community's assessment that he is?I must jump in... Reading your comment leaves me scratching my head.
To put it very logically, and hope it makes you stop for a moment and think. If as you feel intelligence agency and our Democratic Congress have proof that Trump committed crimes, why have they not acted? Why an impeachment inquiry instead of proceeding with an impeachment. It would seem they are charging It would appear to me this is another attempt to make alligations and hope they stick?
Plus --- The six witnesses you speak of, have they actually declare they have proof of that president Trump committed any form of election interference? Or, is this just once again opinions given from unproven allegations? Keep in mind smoke is not fire. It appears to be media reports that are sensationalizing the intelligence community opinions as they feel suits their narratives,
I would also think there would be several whistleblowers in the intelligence come it coming forward on the record if they found the president was committing any form of crime? Common sense tells me this.How do you know the whistleblowers--several now and more to come--aren't from the Intel community?
Several now? I am not aware of any further whistleblower complaints being put forth? I realize the media has eluded to more, but I ave hear of none setting their complaint to paper? I do not know who the Whistleblower is not sure it is public knowledge as of yet. I am sure it will leak if the Dem's see it will help their case. The more smoke the more hysteria. But still no fire. It would be nice if Adam S would release the transcripts from the various people they have questioned before the Intel committee. The Volker transcripts would be wonderful to start with
If there is proof of crimes let's get on with the impeachment.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1 … s-came-out
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-jorda … transcript
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … y-n2554198Yes, there are now multiple official whistleblowers from the intel community. They witnessed the actual call.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/0 … ney-031823
Meanwhile, Trumps is now throwing Rick Perry under the bus along with everyone else within his spitting distance.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … t-n1062931
If Trump goes down, he plans to bring a lot of other people down with him.No doubt there will be many more of Trump's cohorts going down with him. Barr is seeking dirt on the Mueller investigation all over the world. He's doing Trump's bidding instead of the people's, just like Trump expected.
“IC WHISTLEBLOWER UPDATE: I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. No further comment at this time,” Andrew P. Bakaj (@AndrewBakaj) tweeted Sunday morning."
This is compelling. I would expect there may be more complaints filed in the next week or two if these persons will stand behind their concerns again regards to the president.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I would think if Trump finds he is sinking he will take down any and all that he has had in his sights. It would not be pretty.Here is the link to the impeachment process: It's interesting the Constitution does not detail how lawmakers may choose to interpret what does or does not constitute impeachable “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, there is no established standard of proof that must be met.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/p … ion=headerWell, that is unfortunate. I would think that would leave impeachment an option to impeach any president. and overturn any election in the future. I don't put much stock in the NYT.
I have read many articles on the subject, and it is true most are putting out the concept that it's up to Congress to appoint wrongdoing. Although it is apparent cheif justice Roberts would preside over the trial. I trust he would make sure all is done properly.
t any rate, in my opinion, the Senate would not vote to impeach. Just my opinion.
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-d … hUL1WA0IJ/That is exactly what impeachment is for. Our founders tried hard to set it up such that Demagogues like Trump would never be elected. They talked a lot about exactly that in the Federalist Papers as well as at the Constitutional Convention.
They also realized that it might happen and the American public would make a mistake as they did with Trump. Therefore, the impeachment process was written into the Constitution to get bad actors out of office.
Now, had Trump played by the rules while president and not abused his power or obstructed justice or obstructed Congress, we wouldn't be here. But he did, so here we are.
That said, impeachment was never about getting assholes out of office and it isn't being used for that no matter how richly deserved. Trump has broken his oath of office in so many ways and must be impeached. Further, anybody who helped him needs to go as well.
To be honest, I hope the Republicans don't vote to impeach him. In my opinion, real Americans will not stand for such an outrage and will vote them (at least those up for reelection) out of office while they (I don't have a Senator to not vote for - Rubio won't be up until 2022) send Trump to a crashing defeat.I have to say you have some very odd ideas. Do you truly believe a president should be impeached due to the losers just not caring for him or his way of governing? And do you feel it's fair to undo an election of a duly elected president for anything other than a crime?
"They also realized that it might happen and the American public would make a mistake as they did with Trump. "
You need to actually read the Constitution in regards to impeachment. I realize that you seem to take many things out of context, but come on...
"made a mistake"... I predict we will make the same mistake in 2020.
Your language leaves a lot to be desired.I wish I could agree with you, My Esoteric, but I'm afraid that if left up to the voters, Trump followers will blindly follow and vote him a 2nd term. They seem to forgive this man anything, or that he's done nothing to forgive.
Has there been any official complaint as of yet? They well might be from the intelligent community. I am not questioning where they would be from.
OK, so what of all we have seen or heard in Trump's words, the Summary, what we know of the ICIG's testimony, Volker's testimony, and the Texts do you consider opinion that I am considering fact?
"ICIG's testimony, Volker's testimony, " I have seen no transcripts on either? Again only media opinions on the very little that leaked? The Republicans's that were present claimed it blew the Dem's allegations out of the water. The Dem's have not said much on the ICIG's or Volker's testimony.
What I see as missing is proof that Pres. Trump's motive was election interference.
So far, everything I see; Trump's statements, Volker's statements, Soundland's statements and the text of the call memorandum, all declare the purpose was an investigation of 2016 events.
Can you point to any of the above, (beyond Bill Taylor's statement which was noted as incorrect, and the 2nd hand comment that President Zelenski didn't want to get involved in our election politics), that can specifically prove the intention was 2020 election interference?
Even if I said I think the issue is exactly as you say, I would still only have interpretation and opinion to support that agreement. I have not seen any proof that doesn't require opinion or interpretation to counter the actual words in the text or summary and be deemed actual evidence.
GA
How about a vote to proceed with impeachment. If all you mentioned in your comment is factual, are you happy with the way Congress is handling this situation? Does it not give you a reason to pause, and consider there have been no facts presented? All we have so far are opinions and media reports.
Sharlee, My Esoteric's obvious answer should be yes, (about being happy). Which, even though I don't like the unfair impact of Congressional leaks and presser grandstanding, the process is working exactly as intended. The Democrats are using a valid investigative process to reach a decision of whether to recommend Articles of Impeachment - which is the phase where giving the Republicans equal legal Rights comes in.
I don't like the imbalance of this process as it is being used, but I do think it is a valid process for the Democrats to be pursuing.
GAI fully understand your view, and I always respect your calm common-sense opinion. Yes, Congress has a right to conduct a VALID investigation. Do you feel they are conducting themselves appropriately? I see a bunch of sour grape fools on TV nightly accusing the president of crimes they have no proof of, as they did for two years while Mueller did their bidding. I have watched this circus from the day Trump walked into the oval office. I have absolutely no respect for most of the Democrats that make up the majority of Congress.
I don't think that Congress is at all serious about impeachment? They are interested in a long investigation, hoping that they will do the trick to dirty up Trump. They have zero in the way of candidates, and Trump's job performance has been actually very good. I will be honest, and offer my opinion. This impeachment ploy is just that a ploy, I might add a cheap ploy. One does not have to be psychic to figure out the Dem's have come to realize they have nothing to lose by trying to impeach Trump. They may have just realized after three years they lost, and all their feet stamping has not worked. Funny they have not come to realize how foolish they look, and how they have ruined the Democratic party.
President Trump has taken this kind of rhetoric from day one, I think he is well done taking it. This week should be very interesting.
They need to put up or shut up...
"consider there have been no facts presented?" As I asked GA, what things that I think are "facts" that you think are "opinions"? For example, I think thee following are FACTS:
- Z: "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." Followed IMMEDIATELY by T:: " I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal
- [7/21/19, 1:45:54 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics. Clearly, Z thinks he is being used for political purposes and That Is Illegal
- [7/22/19, 4:27:55 PM] Kurt Volker: Orchestrated a great phone call w Rudy and Yermak. They are going to get together when Rudy goes to Madrid in a couple of weeks. WHY is the State Dept working with the president's personal lawyer - That is probably illegal
-[8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM] Kurt Volker: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future. - If THAT was all that Trump asked for, then we wouldn't be here. No, he had to ask for an investigation into his political opponents - and That Is Illegal and he is being impeached for it.
- [9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. Bill Taylor, an experienced foreign service officer, texting to Sundland, large dollar Trump donor with no experience, is clearly upset that Trump has withheld aid for political purposes and That IS Illegal
To me, all of these things are facts. Which of these is simply an opinion by somebody not involved?" " I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal"
No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen. Biden is an American citizen running for president if there is a doubt that he may have broken the law while VP , he needs to be investigated. We have treaties with many country that we mutually cooperate in investigations of crime.
None of the rest means nothing due to the president had the right to ask Zelinsky for assistance. We have laws, and opinions mean very little. i" I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal"
No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen. Biden is an American citizen running for president if there is a doubt that he may have broken the law while VP, he needs to be investigated. We have treaties with many countries that we mutually cooperate in investigations of crime.
None of the rest means nothing due to the president had the right to ask Zelinsky for assistance. We have laws, and opinions mean very little
.
You are wasting energy talking yourself into a
theory that can't be facts. We need Congress to vote and bring their claims forward in an impeachment process.
We would then get facts. Congress is are in search of a crime and hopes to find facts. In my opinion, this is discussing."No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen."
That might be true if 1) that citizen wasn't the person most likely to unseat him in an election and more importantly 2) there was any TRUTH to what Trump is claiming. You ask for evidence that he broke the law yet you DO NOT ask for evidence that the Biden's broke the law. You are being extremely hypocritical.
- I really am sorry that you and other Trump acolytes have such a low regard for moral, ethical, and lawful behavior that you find it necessary to twist logic in such a fashion as you just did in order to protect your leader." You ask for evidence that he broke the law yet you DO NOT ask for evidence that the Biden's broke the law. You are being extremely hypocritica"
No, I have done nothing but ask for an investigation into Biden and his son to find the truth. I have done nothing but promote an impeachment proceeding to investigate Trump to find the truth... You seem to take much of what I have said out of context? You need to read comments more carefully.
My comment please read my words more carefully...
" We need Congress to vote and bring their claims forward in an impeachment process. We would then get facts. "
And in regards to Trump aking Zelinsky to investigate Biden and his son. he is our president first. If he has become aware that an American has broken the law, he has the responsibility of investigating wrongdoing. Especially if that man is running for the highest office in America.
In regards to hypocritical... Our government officials saw fit to investigate a sitting president in regards to possible crimes. This was a prudent investigation. As it is prudent to investigate Biden. The cat is well out of the bag, and we now need truth, facts on the Biden's.
" I really am sorry that you and other Trump acolytes have such low regard for moral, ethical, and lawful behavior that you find it necessary to twist logic in such a fashion as you just did in order to protect your leader."
I am not twisting logic, I am asking for our laws to be recognized, and followed. You certainly have a knack for being rude. Perhaps you should think about how you respond to others? This kind of pious remark shows poor judgment, not to mention a lack of thought process.
I must ask--- Do you ever actually use common sense to form your opinions or do you always go with the groupthink that media provides? Just curiousNot sure what you are saying? I have explained myself very and dispelled any doubt that I hope to see justice done for Trump, as well as Biden.
Sharlee: You stated that you get your information from Rueters News. Are you aware that Trump called them fake news? Here he is attacking one of their journalist when questioned by him...not very presidential in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/qP549ANdWV8I am aware Trump called Reuters as well as many others "fake news". I prefer Reuters, as a rule, they appear non-bias (not always) keep to what they have learned, and as a rule use name or list resources where they obtained their information in any given quote. I have added an article that gives a good example in regard to what I find to be good journalism.
In my opinion, he is a man that is fighting back. I find it refreshing. I would think him a politician if he let the media get away with what they have been saying about him for three years. It's a sad circus, I do not want a ticket to. And to think, many Americans stand in line nightly for Network media to present the greatest farce on earth.
Oct 4, 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1WJ0E8The only thing he is 'fighting back' is the Truth.
But my opinion is based on FACT, yours is not and that is a big difference.
One of Trump's 13,000+ lies and false statements is that his father was born in Germany (or was it New Jersey if you read his ghost-written book). Why do you trust a man who abuses females and lies about where his father is born?You absolutely have no facts to back up a word you have posted on this thread. Your statement sounds like five-year-olds. "
But my opinion is based on FACT, yours is not"
Sad you have not noted, I have said over and over I'm waiting for facts. I don't buy into if comes or it appears or we are looking into's... I just don't like the egg in my face.
Yes, even though the Biden's haven't been charged with anything wrong, you want them investigated anyway.
Just like the president... Pot calling the Kettle... The Bidens are being investigated, if they did nothing they will be exonerated, just like Trump. My money is on Biden's breaking the law.
Shar, what is your evidence that the Bidens have broken the law? No one seems to have any.
I don't think there is anything in regards to solid evidence. However, have you not heard --- accuse and then prove. Sort of ass-backward?
As I said a cat is now out of a bag, and now many have the need to know. This is simply dirty politics, and we have a president that is not a politician, but a street fighter. This is going to get so ugly. It makes me sad. Trump is going to give what he gets. Most Republicans don't get down in the dirt, Trump does.Sharlee: In a civilian court, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court, it is the preponderance of evidence. However in congressional investigations, it seems one is guilty until proven innocent. Hillary was under investigation for 3 years with Benghazi and for one year with email investigations. In both cases, they found nothing, but she was presumed guilty. So welcome to the club.
You are right, Trump is a dirty fighter and it has worked in the past before he was president. But hopefully our system of government with checks and balances will work. Many of his associates were indicted and sent to jail as a result of Mueller's investigations. So far, he and his cohorts have made a mockery of our government processes and institutions. They don't respond to subpoenas and if they do appear for a hearing, they refuse to cooperate, e.g., Pompeo and Lewandowski.I think in the end the truth will be found. I will accept whatever the outcome. I am sure our system of government with checks and balances will work. I just think it fair to keep a cool head and wait for some real evidence before condemning anyone.
Trump's MO is to simply accuse, accuse, accuse. He never bothers to even TRY to prove anything.
On the other hand, there are tons of evidence that Trump broke the law which then led to an investigation.Sort of like the Congress... Trump has asked Ukraine to investigate any wrongdoings the Biden's may have committed.
No, NOT "sort of like congress". They have real evidence unlike the Trump Fake News machine.
BTW, why hasn't Trump asked Ukraine to investigate any wrongdoings God may have committed? That is the same thing. Are you saying you are okey with investigating God for political purposes?
There are really no facts as of yet that Trump broke any form of law?
There are plenty of facts, they have been listed multiple times in this and other threads - you just have to say they aren't facts for you to hold your untenable position of a blind Trump follower.
It's useless. As I stated earlier, the willfully blind refuse to see. No matter how many facts you present, they deny, deny, deny. Just like their chosen one.
The blood of the Kurds will be on the hands of Trump supporters...….but they don't give a big dog f**k, Scott! I feel so bad for those supporting such a POS.
The 40% who continue to defend a lying POS are what cause me to fear for the future of our country.
It amazes me that so many American's have given their soul to this dangerous demagogue, just like so many German's gave up their soul to a similar demagogue Hitler.
It is exactly the same dynamic and mind set.
How did you feel when the Syrian people were daily being killed? 500 thousand dead in a short period of time. I call that genocide. Did you complain? There is no blood on Trump's hands and may never well be. He all but obliterated ISIS. Something two presidents were unable to do...Thee are facts, Randy
.
Why not wait to see if the Kurds are attacked? Why not deal with facts, not if comes? Make every excuse you can tell yourself these excuses over and over ---.500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. You talk about blood on hands? Look to your own. Trump has vowed to keep the Kurds safe, and he will retaliate if needed. If he draws a red line he will uphold his threat. Your statement went over the line. You should learn to respect other opinions because there are plenty of Americans who support this president. So far he has been doing a good job keeping us safe
How do you say it? Pot Kettle...Why not wait to see if the Kurds are attacked? Why not deal with facts, not if comes? Make every excuse you can tell yourself these excuses over and over ---
Turkey launches military assault in Syria as Kurdish fighters say warplanes are bombing region
A planned Turkish military operation in northern Syria has now begun, the country's president announced Wednesday, as Kurdish fighters say warplanes are already bombing civilian areas in the region.
A spokesperson for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces says Turkish warplanes have "started to carry out airstrikes on civilian areas", causing a "huge panic among people of the region."
https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-sy … ry-assault
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live … index.htmlSharlee: Most candidates while running for office make promises they can't keep because they know they are unrealistic. Trump makes promises and he tries to keep them no matter how unrealistic they are or what danger they cause to others.
So he promised to bring home the troops from Syria. Now he is doing it for his base. It's all part of his campaign ploy. He could care less about how many Kurds are killed or whether they played a significant role in stopping ISIS. There are 10 of thousands of ISIS fighters being held by the Kurds. Now they are going to have to defend themselves against the Turks and ISIS will be released because they can't guard them.
Trump exhibits all the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and one of the main characteristic is they are not capable of empathy because everything is about them.
Trump has no empathy for the Kurds. It is all about keeping his promise to his base. He doesn't care that Kurdish troop and families are going to be decimated by Turkish forces as long as he gets to keep his promise to his base.
He says he won't let Turkey destroy them because he will then destroy the Turkish economy. How is he going to determine when to destroy the Turkish economy?
In my estimation, this decision by Trump is enough to impeach him as he is putting our country in danger and and causing an unjustified civil war in the middle east, just so he can gets votes from his base for his re-election.
He doesn't even listen to what is left of his administration and cabinet members, after so much turnover. Ideally for Trump he would love to go it alone as a king of the U.S. He and his cohorts have made a mockery of our government and its institutions...all in the name of King Trump.
If you are subpoenaed, you have to appear. Trump and his people are subpoenaed and they defy the law. with his civilian attorneys who are not even government employees. He even uses Guiliani as a foreign ambassador. I'll bet he is even paying these people with our tax dollars.Trump is delivering on his promise to the American people. What is unrealistic is your party who lies to get into office and does everything against the people and then blame the opposition party for the mess they help create.
The war in the middle east has gone on long enough. It is something we have no control over. They will be fighting for another 1000 years. We have no reason to spend blood and treasure to maintain the status quo. They will fight it out one way or another and the winner will be the peacemaker.Yeah Jack, and Putin wins again with help from your idol.
Putin is responsible for Trump being president (once Clinton put him within striking distance).
Good point. Now that Trump has done such a huge favor for Putin, I wonder if Putin's buddies will give Trump another $100 million?
You think this was about money?
Putin is a thug. Trump a Billionaire. 3.1 B according to Forbes.
Do the math...Trump has always lied to Forbes, Jack. He used his father's assest as his own. Get up to date, dude!
You appear to have no understanding of the importance, throughout history, the Middle East has on the world. Every world power who ever ignored it like you want to do ultimately collapsed and lost their standing - every one.
No he is not, Jack. Trump promised (unnecessarily) to make America great and he has done just the opposite - he has turned America into a pathetic shell of itself. Where we once had values, we now have none.
The US was weak under the Obama Admin. It was Barack that pulled our troops out of Iraq prematurely...
Your bias is showing.
I know the history of the MiddleEast fairly well. I know we have made mistakes in the past.
Perhaps, leaving them alone is better in the long run.,,Your ignorance is showing Jack. Obama had no choice because of the status of forces agreement BUSH signed. Iraq wanted us out and Obama obliged (granted he didn't try hard to stay, but he did try).
If you pull out of the Middle East, history shows America will become an also-ran as Russia and China gain power - but that may be OK with you, I don't know.
BTW - The FAKE NEWS FOX poll shows 51% of registered voters want Trump impeached and Removed. Another 4% want Trump impeached but not removed. ONLY 40%, and falling, don't want Trump impeached.
On top of that, the number of Republicans who want Trump impeached increased 5 points, the same has the increase in Evangelicals.
These are huge increases as previous polls a few months ago only had 40% wanting Trump impeached.
Turkey is now massacring hundreds, if not more, of civilian Kurds - bombing them like Assad is doing. TRUMP IS COMPLICIT in Turkey's continuation of the genocide against the Kurds.
I think I'll say....I told ya so, Shar. How many civilian deaths are you responsible for in this battle? You are something else.....
Very dramatic statement ... But I have to say it's hypocritical.
Actually none I don't believe in policing the world. I do believe if atrocities are occurring we step in to help. 500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. How many are you responsible for? I have every hope if the UN witnesses atrocities they will step in, and form a coalition to step in and defend the citizens involved. But for our American soldiers to be put in harm's way to police warring countries, I am not a supporter of our troop's policing.
Pot Kettle...Me? I didn't help put the POS in the WH. How about you? You'd defend him against anything it seems. Any other POTUS would be ashamed of America allowing the Kurds to be exterminated, but not your guy.
And now Trump is in the process of throwing Rudy Giuliani under the bus after his two Russian goons were arrested today - just like he did Cohen.
Trump and Rudy have broken SO MANY LAWS it is unbelievable!Yep, they were trying to flee the country--they were slated to appear before Congress on an Impeachment inquiry the next day--and had purchased one way tickets to Frankfort, Germany. Coincidentally, they had lunch with Rudy earlier that day.
I wonder who tipped them off they were on the verge of being arrested? I'll wager it was a guy named Bill. I hope he goes down with Rudy and Don. This is criminal crap!
Randy, I am not his defender. However, I am the defender of facts and waiting for facts before making any accusations.
That is the problem. We don’t have an honest media any more. What is presented is not fact but fiction in so many cases. I stopped watching news years ago.
I agree with your view, the media has become a propaganda machine, Hard to believe a thing they say.
Sharlee and Jack: I believe 90% of what the MSM says. I believe nothing Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, and Levin say. They are just giving their opinion and have prostituted themselves to the GOP, Trump, and Rupert Murdoch; follow the money.
The problem is they have a larger viewership than the MSM, but it is made up of people who believe Trump and Fox News based on blind faith.
When Trump came on board, he quickly named the MSM as fake news and the enemy of the people and a lot of the people that voted for him believed him without questioning and blind faith. Propagandist know that if you repeat something enough times, it will believed and Trump is a master at repetition and lies.That is true ONLY of most of the Conservative media. (Now that Shep is gone from Fox, their news, which use to be real, will probably go the way of their opinion shows, chock full of lies and false statements.
Not at all, it's there's a certain portion of the population who have no idea how to view political facts. Those people put the cretin in office and are now wondering what's going on.
Today you have the internet, and you can have news from thousands of different sources. Especially if you can read English.
A fact is still a fact and an opinion is an opinion. A fact is that Trump never showed his tax revenue to the public. An opinion is that there is something wrong with his tax returns. A fact is that Trump said I grab them by the pussy. An opinion is if you find it ok or not.What does that have to do with governing our country? And what does the endless investigation by the Democrats serve?
We already had 2 years of Mueller investigation...
When it was Clinton, having sex with an intern in the Oval office, it was only about sex? A personal matter.I was stating the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Sure, I was citing the dishonest media that focuses on all negative Trump 90%...some with made up stories and distortions...
Are you saying the real media ought to simply Ignore ALL of the BAD things Trump does like the Conservative media does every day?. There are very few Positive things they can report on.
So you say that 90%of what is written about Trump on the internet, newspapers, tele and radio is dishonest?
Maybe it's like they are actually right. Maybe it's like 90% of the scientific world believes in climate change and you still believe it is not happening.
What is your criteria for calling something honest and dishonest, true or false?That is not what I am saying. When 90% of the story are negative, it is a sign of bias.
What do you think the word “bias” mean?
If they would report on some of the great news on the economy under Trump, that would be more balanced. Instead, all the focus is on Russian collusion, and now on Ukraine...based on hearsay...gimme a break...
By the same token, under Obama/Biden, they were treated with kid gloves, despite real scandals. Bias .... bias....
So, I have no problem with the media doing their job - which is keeping a check on our government as a watch dog.
Instead we have a media that is corrupt and putting a thumb on the scale and cheering one party while denigrating the other.
This is not good for our country or for democracy.
The people need good information to make an informed choice at election time. Don’t you agree?
Just as a reality check...
When was the last story in the media you read or saw or heard that had something good to say about Trump’s policies?
The silence is deafening...
Don’t take my word for it.
The media themselves readily admit they are biased...
They have stopped pretending to be fair and balanced. Go google it.That is not what I am saying. When 90% of he story are negative, it is a sign of bias.
What do you think the word “bias” mean?
If they would report on some of the great news on the economy under Trump, that would be more balanced. Instead, all the focus is on Russian collusion, and now on Ukraine...based on hearsay...gimme a break...
By the same token, under Obama/Biden, they were treated with kid gloves, despite real scandals. Bias .... bias....
So, I have no problem with the media doing their job - which is keeping a check on our government as a watch dog.
Instead we have a media that is corrupt and putting a thumb on the scale and cheering one party while denigrating the other.
This is not good for our country or for democracy.
The people need good information to make an informed choice at election time. Don’t you agree?
Just as a reality check...
When was the last story in the media you read or saw or heard that had something good to say about Trump’s policies?
The silence is deafening...In real independent journalism, when 90% of the story is negative, it's usually because 90% of the subject's behavior is negative.
And since Trump has no policies other than creating one crisis or scandal after another, the subject is Trump himself.Your response has just exposed your bias. What if I point out all the good that Trump has done? I am willing to make you a challenge. You list some top 5 wrongs that Trump had done, and I will match it with something good, twice as much.
You just exposed your own bias by insisting that you can come up with "all the good Trump has done".
I will offer facts. You will offerh opinions. There is no point to what you propose.Not all, just to counter some of the bias reporting you have been forced fed...if I post them will you at least be honest and admit you have not heard about them reported?
It is hard to find positive news about Trump because there is so little of it to report. But, the legitamate media did report a lot about:
* The GOP Tax Cut which Trump claims as his
* The time awhile back that the economy grew a little above 3% two quarters in a row (one of those has since been revised downward) - but they can't report today about a booming economy because - well it isn't.
* They have often reported on Trump's deregulation (even though it is making America worse)
* They frequently report on the stock market doing so well
* They reported on the terrible Supreme Court appointments McConnell had to cheat to get through the Senate
* They report frequently on the low unemployment numbers
* They just reported on Trump's new tiny trade deal with China
They have reported on a lot more but you are SO BIASED you refuse to acknowledge that they do.
Now turn to #FakeFoxOpinion. When have they EVER opined on the many, many bad things Trump has done? (I will grant that Fox News TRIED to report on the bad things but received so much criticism, their most popular news anchor had to quit in disgust.)
Here is an excerpt...
“
Ms. Shoe says the paper is “widely, widely understood to be left-leaning.” (OK, that one’s not shocking.) But this admission is: “Our main stories are supposed to be objective. It’s very difficult in this day and age to do that.”
Then Ms. Shoe starts breaking down the new way things get done at America’s most prestigious paper.
“This is what I was trying to say is, like, the last couple years it’s changed for the bad. I think the business model itself is just — there’s so much panic about what to do that, you know, what else is a company supposed to do? That’s the conundrum, is that a business model, in this time, is built on what the readers want.”
Well, then, who are the readers of The Times? Ms. Shoe, occasionally taking sips of a pint of beer, says “some of the readers are liberal,” then pauses before she amends that to, “a lot of them are liberal.”Another source...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/m … ncna895471Oh, please, it's an opinion piece about Project Veritas, which is famous for creating fake videos.
The article begins with "The muckity mucks in the liberal media". You call that a credible source of journalism?Jack: Everything that you say about the MSM, I can say about Fox News. The reason Fox News even exists is to denigrate the democrats and promote republicans and the GOP. That is Rupert Murdoch's mission in life.
Trump just sent AG Barr to talk to Murdoch about Sheppard Smith telling the truth about Trump and Guiliani. Guess what? The next day he resigned or was fired. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The deep state Q anon were created by Sean Hannity as a conspiracy that can't be proved one way or the other, but Trump uses it to blame the democrats for his failings, including Obama.
Chris Como's Prime Time gives equal time to Trump supporters as well as democratic supporters. He has had Guiliani on his show many times, even as he has made a fool of himself with his rants.
Fareed Zakaria on Sunday morning has many notable heads of states and other credible journalist on his show from all over the world's geopolitical spectrum. How many has Fox News had on their shows?
Yes, they have a larger viewership, than the MSM, but their viewers have all been brainwashed by Trump's fantasy universe. That is what he does, he plays to people's fantasies that accept him on blind faith.You are absolutely right. Fox news and a few conservatives radio talk show are the only opposition to the main stream media. The reason Fox is doing so well in the polls is because they are providing an alternative voice which was lacking...don’t you see.
If the other news channels were honest, Fox would not have succeeded.Jack: Here is what a long time ex Fox host says about Fox.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/0 … ighlights/The reason Fox is doing so well in the polls is because there is only one to chose from while in the legitimate news, there are many. If Fox doesn't have over 50% of the share, then it is not doing all that great.
Conservatives turn to Fox because it tells them only what they want to hear - not objective opinion (although their News used to be relatively fair as is their polling) But with Shep Smith gone, I suspect his fair and balanced reporting is heading for the trash heap.
BTW - Tell me why Matt Drudge is turning away from Trump?And Jack, please recognize you are NOT talking about Fox News, they are (were) in the same league as CNN and the rest. You ARE talking about Fox Opinion which is an entertainment show that acts as a Trump propaganda outlet.
Project Veritas exposes some of the corruption in the media and in Planned Parenthood and ACORN. People who do these things are not always going to tell you or give interviews on the record. Remember 60 minutes used to do some of the same hit pieces, ambush interviews.
You are buying into the lie about Project Veritas. Who these people got caught red handed...it is always the other guy’s fault.Project Veritas exposes some of the corruption in the media and in Planned Parenthood and ACORN. People who do these things are not always going to tell you or give interviews on the record. Remember 60 minutes used to do some of the same hit pieces, ambush interviews.
You are buying into the lie about Project Veritas. When these people got caught red handed...it is always the other guy’s fault.
What about the CIA whistleblower? Do we know what his background and his connection to the DNC?
No, but know at least 4 different people with access to Trump's Ukrainian conversation, in which the quid pro quo was asked, were alarmed about it. Today the ex-Ambassador said Rudy and his crowd--the recent arrested Ukrainian connections--had her removed to further advance their greed in that country.
It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on Jack, but one does have to recognize when one has been had. And you've been had...Read the transcript. It is public. lies by a partisan hack that has permeated our government. This is not justice. This is not how impeachment comes about...
"This is not how impeachment comes about..."
Sure it is. The Democratic majority doesn't really care about the excuse; they just want to impeach. And will do so with or without an honest reason.We will never know, will we, since they have all sorts of legitimate reasons to do so starting with the Mueller case for Obstruction of Justice and the Ukraine scandal.
What gives YOU the right to speak for the Democratic majority, Dan? As I told Jack, watch the next few days and learn something about the corrupt person you defend and apologize for.
Will you still identify with him? No, you'll do like the rest of Trump's supporters and fade into the woodwork rather than admit you fell for the snake oil salesman.
Are you calling Trump a liar Jack?? If so, you are finally getting it! We all read the summary of the call and it clearly shows Trump breaking the law. Now we have the texts and testimony from the former ambassador which just layers on the illegal acts.
Jack, give it up. Trump's goose is cooked, and so is yours as far as your reputation for recognizing crooks when you support them goes. Watch the next few days and you'll learn something about the rule of law in this country.
Hehe - Besides that, Trump had a really bad day today.
Ambassador Y ripped him a new asshole in testimony today.
The court told him Mazars must turn over his taxes. The Supreme Court will not review the decision.
The court put a stay on his illegal rule change to make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards.
The court put a stay on his illegal Emergency declaration.
God, I love it.Yes sir, not a good day at all and now a DHS official has resigned because of the corruption in the department. The rats are deserting the ship....the smart one's anyway.
What I know about the whistleblower is that the Trump-appointed ICIG AND the Trump-appointed acting head of Homeland Security said he is credible. What else would a reasonable person need?
What does the investigations serve??? It gets a crook and traitor out of the White House. You should be asking what all of those multiple and endless investigations by the #NoBallsGOP in Clinton accomplish accept exonerate her Each and Every Time.
And yes, you are right, the Clinton's were about sex and not a danger to national security that Trump represents. Also, Trump is getting an even better pass on his multiple cases of sexual abuse of women.
No, I think my statement is very clear. Not sure how you came out the other end with such an opinion? My statement is so clear? Odd you felt it necessary to add your comment, it makes no sense?
Maybe you should read my sentiments once more.
"I don't believe in policing the world. I do believe if atrocities are occurring we step in to help. 500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. How many are you responsible for? I have every hope if the UN witnesses atrocities they will step in, and form a coalition to step in and defend the citizens involved. But for our American soldiers to be put in harm's way to police warring countries, I am not a supporter of our troop's policing."
I witness America stand down when so many were being killed in Syria. I watched public care less... I watched a president hide his head in the sand... No, I do not believe in Genocide, and still, hold the shame of it.
More to the point, they haven't been accused of doing anything wrong by the authorities that matter, the Ukrainians. This is ALL made up by Trump; it is true FAKE NEWS in the original meaning of the term.
Trump would accuse God of corruption if it suited him. He should never, ever be believed.But they suck it all in, Scott. I think he's a Pied Piper to the Right. Scary, ain't it, Scott?
Yep.
I am hoping that Trump throwing our Kurdish allies to the murderous Turks is enough to put balls on enough GOP Senators to move them over to the impeach column.It seems even the Trump suck-up Graham is against this insane move, Scott. Trump didn't consult anyone--except perhaps Putin--about this stupid decision.
Truth be told, I have no doubt in my mind that Putin told him to do it.
Now let's see if the Ds have enough gumption to hold Sondland and Pompeo of inherent contempt of Congress and throw their butts in jail."Putin told him to do it"? OMG this kind of thought process is scary.
Sharlee: You say you are waiting for the facts and are waiting to see if the Biden's are exonerated. Please enlighten me. Who in our country is investigating them?
Trump has asked China and the Ukraine to investigate them, but who in are justice system is investigating them? It is another conspiracy theory that Trump is using right out of his play book of open-ended investigations with no conclusion...just like the birther movement and voter fraud.
What you are doing is playing a passive resistance role and hoping the impeachment inquiry fails. So you and all Trump supporters can say here is another failed effort by the democrats.Your last paragraph summed it up nicely, Mike. Trump fans will hold on until the very end, and then some. I hope they feel regret for ever voting for the cretin. I know I would never trust their political judgement again.
The New prosecutor in Ukraine, as well as Guliani.
I truly hope to get on with the investigation, although in order for the Republicans to participate and contribute to the investigation the impeachment inquiry needs to be voted on. They need to have the same powers as the Dem's in this inquiry. This is fair play. I don't care how long the inquiry drags on, but it needs to be fair.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/uk … d=66063268
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/76738670 … er-employeWhy? The Republicans didn't grant Ds subpoena power when investigating Clinton. I say turn-around is fair play - wouldn't you?
Also, it was the Rs who set up the rules that the Ds are using now - why change them just because they are whining?
Bottom line, the Democrats are playing by the Republican rule book. When the inquiry is over, then they can vote on impeachment and the Rs can call their so-called witnesses (something the Ds were never able to do).
No - it is Trump's thought process that is scary. I would never had suggested such a thing with Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon - wouldn't even cross my mind.
But since Trump's only friends are fellow autocrats (Putin, Assad, Un, Xi, Erdoğan, etc.), it does cross my mind with him.
Have you forgotten Syria? hate to bring it up, however, Obama turned his back on the death of over 500 thousand Syrians. This is a fact.
Not sure why you can say this? One only has to read my comments to see I am once again waiting for facts. I have condemned no one Trump or the Biden's.
If it is fake news the investigation will exonerate the Biden's. It is a shame they were accused without solid evidence, only lots of smoke. Sort of the same way Trump is being accused. The Dem's are not immune to this new way of justice. They created it, they will have to live with it.
If there had been evidence about the Bidens, Trump would have presented it. He hasn't because there isn't any, he is just simply making it up for his political benefit.
On the other hand, there is tons of evidence of Trump's guilt.
Sharlee: Pelosi is gathering evidence about Trump. It takes time. I don't know where you are getting your information from, it sounds like Fox News (opinion). As far as Biden goes, he has already been cleared of any wrong doing by the Ukrainian government.
There are two issues here. One is did Trump use his power to influence a foreign head of state to find dirt on Biden?
The other is from Trump's side that is distraction by trying to accuse Biden of wrong doing. Those type of conspiracy attacks are right out of Trump's play book. When he is under attack, he attacks the attackers and tries to transfer the blame to them, but he always leaves his investigations open ended.
He did it with the birther movement and voter fraud. Now he is doing it with Pelosi and Biden. He and Fox News (opinion) even accuses Pelosi of Treason and a coup de tat.
Here is the definition of Treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Here is the definition of Coup de etata:
": a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group a military coup d'état of the dictator."
Trump and his supporters could care less about looking up the definitions of those accusations because he and Fox News (opinion) has brain washed them.
Pelsoi and her team are building a case to present to the senate. However Mitch McConnel said he would not cooperate in an impeachment. The GOP is too afraid to go against Trump because he would call them names and insult them to the point they would lose their support for re-election.
So they are laying low and in the background. Trump has intimidated them. The only way the GOP senate will get involved is if they see their bids for re-election are being threatened by their own constituents, not supporting Trump. He has made them afraid of him and afraid of losing their re-elections.
These are my opinions based on my observations and research.As I have stated previously I respect your right to your opinion. We just don't hare the same thought process in regard to this subject.
Hopefully in the end, if any laws were broken by Trump, Biden or his son these many investigations will find the truth. And anyone that they find guty of any crimes will answer for their crimes.
I do not apply myself to groupthink, I just have learned to be patient and wait for the final outcome. I would derive no joy from being right or wrong in this case. I certainly would be remorseful if I condemned anyone without factual evidence.
I guess it's once again a waiting game. I do have faith that facts will emerge.
I also tire of haring I ascribe to Fox news. I would think this kind of accusation is getting old, stale.
Time for Congress to call for the impeachment they have been seeking from the time he stepped into the oval office. Time to put up or shut up. Their righteous indignation is getting very old...
Then you are stunned for the wrong reason promisem. Maybe you have wasted a good stun you could have better used elsewhere.
I am not stunned, yet, but I will be if you can find a statement of mine that says I don't see anything wrong with the president pressuring another country for political gain. Just because I point out that something proclaimed as fact is not fact - but interpretation or opinion, doesn't mean I hold a contrary opinion of that interpretation or opinion.
It seems that possibility hasn't occurred to you. After all of our frequent exchanges, I think it should have by now.
GAGA, I think stunned is a good word because your consistent defense of Trump is far apart from your interest in history and government.
You are saying nothing is wrong with Trump pressuring another country for political gain by:
1. Omitting that position.
2. Focusing on secondary issues.
3. Claiming many obvious facts are opinions.
Trump admitted that he pushed the Ukrainian president to go after Trump's main political rival in 2020. He said so on a doctored transcript. They hid the transcript because of what it meant. There are multiple witnesses plus an inspector general who said he broke the law.
Those are the key facts. They are not opinions.
Likewise, by your own statement, you seem to support interference with the impeachment process by a President who has already threatened the first whistleblower.Now you are just being obstinate promisem. A criticism of an anti-Trump statement is not automatically a defense of Trump. Your perception that it is has been repeatedly denied and explained. Yet you continue to view any criticism as such. I think you are wrong.
I see the remainder of your comment as just a repeat of your previous presentation of your opinions and interpretations as facts. I believe I have already shown that they are not facts, but interpretation and opinion. So as you have said, (perhaps a paraphrasing?), "I have already shown you that, so do your own research."
How about taking up my challenge: Do a little research. Show me statements of mine that have been a defense of Pres. Trump and not just criticisms or disagreements with and of your facts.
If your opinion that I consistently defend Trump and do support interference in the impeachment process is truly factual, (as you claim), then the evidence to meet my challenge should be easy to find.
GATrump admitting that he asked, pushed or encouraged the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is an opinion and not a fact? Six witnesses interviewed by the inspector general is an opinion and not a fact?
Seriously?
I can admit that I oppose Trump. You can't admit that you defend him under just about all circumstances.I agree with your opening statement promisem. And I don't think I have ever denied it. What I have challenged is the declaration of fact that it was for the purpose of election interference.
Do your "six witnesses" all declare they have proof it was for the purposes of election interference? Or, do they just offer their opinions of interpretation that it was?
But you are right that I cannot admit I defend Pres. Trump under almost any circumstances because I do not think I do. I am certain that is not my intention, but I am only sure that I don't.
GAI'm not convinced yet it was for election purposes. The reasoning is that Trump is being Trump: he has been challenged and is responding in a like manner. I'm not sure that his ego would allow him to think there is a possibility he won't win the election whether he can remove Biden or not.
Now there is a perspective that anti-Trumpers should agree with, re. Trump's ego.
GA
There are over 13,000 well documented false statements and lies from Trump - that is a fact! So, why should we believe "Pres. Trump privately and publically stated/states his intentions were/are corruption-related, not election-related."
Why did Z think it WAS election related?No, Scott, I don't think that is a fact. There may be over 13,000 statements claimed to be false, but I am skeptical that all of those have been factually proven to be false.
And yes, I know I am doubting the veracity of countless investigative efforts. However, I am not disagreeing with the point of your statement. I am just skeptical it can be called a fact.
As for your question about President Zelenski, he probably thought it was election-related because it probably was. That is what I think.
GAOK, so there is 12,999 WELL DOCUMENTED false statements and outright lies. Hell, I started a hub on it with truth attached but was overwhelmed by the volume of it.
Define a fact? To my sun example - since it is not a fact that it will come up tomorrow are you trying to tell me you are "skeptical" that it will with the same skepticism that Trump has broken the law?Nope, I can't tell you that, and, since you compromised to a more realistic number of 12,999, (;-)),then I think we can let this point lay and move on to concrete issues.
GA
It sounds like you agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process.
Because that's what they are trying to do.
The Democrats don't have "carte blanche" because there are 197 Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they are on every House committee.
By the way, the Republicans are already spending millions of dollars on TV attack ads including my own market.
The idea that they can't have a say in the court of public opinion is absurd.You are partly right promisem. According to your thinking, because I disagree with what you proclaim to be truth and fact . . .
"It sounds like "I" agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process."
A point about that is the point I have been making about most of your proclamations of truth and fact - they are assumptions and opinions, just like your assumption and opinion that "It sounds like "I" agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process.
But you are wrong about that assumption. Could you be wrong about your others?
As for the Democrats not having "carte blanche;" Can they carry the majority in the House regardless of Republican votes? Can they carry the majority in their committees regardless of Republican objections?
I think the answer to those questions is "yes," so maybe they do have carte blanche after all.
Relative to the ads . . . Are you saying that to the non-Trump base voter a political ad will carry as much weight as a Congressional committee news proclamation? I don't think so, but maybe you do.
Your final point is the part you got partly right. It is absurd that the Democrats can make pronouncements and accusations in the garments of Congressional authority while the Republicans can only spend money to run political ads.
GA
" the Democrats have carte blanche to conduct their investigation in the court of public opinion without the accused having any voice at all in what the public hears." - REALLY? Trump has the biggest bullhorn of anyone to the public and he uses it ad nauseum.
BTW, isn't this the same process the Republicans used against Clinton?Yes, "REALLY." To non-committed Trump voters do you think what comes from Trump's bully-pulpit carries the same weight as a Congressional committee pronouncement? Do you really think that?
If your point were true, would that be analogous to claiming a jury gives the same weight to a defense attorney's statement as they do to a judge's statement?
GAIf your point were true, would that be analogous to claiming a jury gives the same weight to a defense attorney's statement as they do to a judge's statement?
Gag order.Hi IslandMom. Do you mean a gag order for the committees? If so, good luck with that. The information would still be leaked and we would have dozens of leaker investigations to add to the half dozen Congressional investigations we already have going.
GAI have some questions for everybody:
1. Why is Trump going after Biden now for corruption since it has been 3 years since the alleged corruption took place?
2. Why did Trump hold back the funding for the Javelin missiles when congress had already approved the transfer of funds?
3. Why does Trump state that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son, when there was no prosecution and it was the Ukraine government that removed the corrupt prosecutor?
4. What other person or persons has the Trump administration investigated for corruption?
Please copy and paste these questions into your reply. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers. Thank you.Good luck getting factual answers from the right!
Relative to non-Trump base voters we disagree on this point Scott. To those voters I speak of, I think the Congressional voice carries more weight.
Another example of the greatness of Baskin-Robbins.
GAJust visited their plant and had some wonderful ice cream.
Should I guess your favorite flavor, Butter Pecan? Mixed dips of chocolate and coconut are mine.
GA
First I must start with your official theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyF8RHM … e&t=77
Okay, I'm not following this line of thinking GA. How can Congress vote on articles of impeachment, when it hasn't yet investigated the matter? That's like charging someone without investigating what crime(s) they have committed first. [EDIT] I see that Trump seems to be asking for a vote on the impeachment inquiry itself, not the articles of impeachment. I think the rest of my post is still relevant, but I wanted to clarify that point.
It's perfectly within Congress' constitutional authority to investigate Trump's abuses of authority via the Congressional committee process if it chooses to. The only issue is that Trump has in-effect put in place a blanket ban on administration officials cooperating.
The logical conclusion of this situation is that Congress can only fulfill its oversight function through the mechanism of impeachment, which is nonsense. It's also unconstitutional.
A president (any president) doesn't get to pick and choose the manner in which Congress oversees the Executive. Anyone with any doubt as to the authority of Congress need only look to the Constitution. The House has no obligation to vote on impeachment until it's good and ready to. Trump has every obligation to cooperate with Congress to the extent the law demands, regardless of whether it's started an impeachment inquiry or not.Excellent choice Don, I will accept and own that anthem. I always did like Whitesnake.
As for the rest of your comment . . . I couldn't find anything to disagree with. Maybe we will have better luck next time.
Wait, that sounds like it deserves an explanation. I emphasized "if" in my original comment because I was repeating a story I heard but had not looked into, and, I made subsequent comments in favor of that idea because I thought--with the daily spectacle of Democrat accusations--it was a fair-sounding idea.
GA
I am not sure if the polls that indicate a moderate percentage of citizens feel Trump should be impeached had anything to do with Pelosi moving ahead with her "impeachment inquiry:? It certainly could be politically motivated. It is clear to me if Congress wants an investigation they do not so far have enough evidence to move ahead with impeachment or the support of the congressional majority. I would surmise in this case polls were used to gain added Congressional support. There were and still are many Congressmen and Congresswomen on the fence.
Indeed the fog of willful ignorance seems to be lifting from some of the smarter folk on the right, just as in Nixon's impeachment. Before it's over there will be many others who continue to swallow Trump's daily lies.
That's a rational, objective and non partisan answer.
The Democrat party and media told you for two years that Hillary was going to win in a landslide.They followed that up with two years of lies about TRUMP Russia collusion. You are not angry about being lied too and having your intelligence insulted? I guess not. Apparently you believe this impeachment is the real deal. Meanwhile, the country’s doing great. Thank you president Trump!
Another Trumpster who cares not about the rule of law. No surprise!
Is it really? Stock market hit its lowest point in 10 years today. It keeps a roller coaster ride going and never stays up for long. Our allies hate us now. It doesn't matter what the braggart says. North Korea is launching mid-range missiles from submarines and the media is asking if long-range missiles are next. Take off your rose-colored Trump glasses.
Really? The market is at it's lowest in 10 years?
Dow Jones:
Oct. 3, 2019 25883
8-23-2019 25629
5-31-2019 24815
12-21-20-18 22445
3-23-2018 23533
1-15-2016 15988
Where are you getting your information? Though it IS a roller coaster ride - has been since its inception.
Fox News talking points.
No, the Dems and media did not say Hillary would win in a landslide. The final polls showed her leading in the popular vote by 3%. She won it with just over 2%.
No, the Mueller report did not say there was no collusion.
Meanwhile, the economy is quickly heading toward a recession and bankruptcy thanks to Trump.
Are you happy now with your support of a traitorous president. In the space of a week, he destroyed all of the gains made against ISIS https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/middleea … index.html
I seriously think Treason should be one of the Articles of Impeachment against him along with
Abuse of Power
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Congress
Violation of the Constitution for Domestic Emoluments
Violation of the Constitution for Foreign Emoluments
Collusion with a foreign government against the United States
Illegally trying to influence an electionWOW, one would really think out od all this we would be voting on impeachment?
I would not like to bet on it. It looks as if Schiff's case is getting weaker and all his shifty rhetoric will most likely get him in trouble. At any rate, can't wait until Friday Horowitz will be tosing out his report. Should shoot all the impeachment crazy out of the media. Where it belongs... Thy need to either get on with it or stop making fools of themselves.
Hope you caught lots of red snapper.
You would think so, wouldn't you? All of those are old news, and were reported days after he took office. Of course, the collusion with Russia was proven false after 2 years and millions of dollars of effort, but the rest are still being claimed...without ever taking action, which is the duty of Congress. Wonder what their reasons are for refusing to perform their duty? Is it possible, just possible, that it's all far more political than real, like the collusion tale?
Good old Schiff's case is getting stiffer by the day. He is now stating he does not need to question the whistleblower. This is downright laughable. I have never witnessed such a bunch of crap in my life. Hey, Friday Horowitz is supposed to release his report. This will blow the impeachment circus right out of town. I have good faith in Horowitz. I feel he will bring all the dirt out into the open. And it's long overdue. My God the country looks stupid with all this craziness going on.
Why does he need the wistleblower anymore?? Everything he wrote has been proven true with other evidence - he is simply not needed now and his safety is at risk because of Trump's rhetoric.
In looking tor a reference to your Horowitz claim, I see the Conservative media is already attacking him for being too soft.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com … 20565.html
I couldn't find where he is supposed to release his report on Friday. I hope he does.Schiff lied about when the was aware of the whistleblower, and there is a question of if Schiff met with the WB. I would well think he would not want anyone to be allowed to question this WB. If they go to an impeachment trial the WB will be questioned by the Senate. Another reason the Dem won't proceed with impeachment.
Their crooks that are knee-deep in lies.
How are you aware of anything being proven? The WB claim did not correspond to the transcript of the phone call? Not sure about what any of the media is saying about Horowitz's findings? I trust he will have done a good investigation and will tell it like it is, and he had no leaks...
"Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo says her sources are telling her an extensive report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI will be released by the end of next week.
Bartiromo, who is the first journalist to report an exact release date, discussed what she had learned on her Fox News show, Sunday Morning Futures, with two Republican congressmen who deduced that former high-ranking government officials are bracing for a scathing critique.
"I’m hearing the IG report will be out this upcoming Friday, Oct. 18, and my sources say it’s as thick as a telephone book," Bartiromo said, adding that it covers "more than just FISA abuse."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … fisa-abuseYou do know that "Schiff lied about when the was aware of the whistleblower, and there is a question of if Schiff met with the WB. " is a lie, don't you? Schiff has never met the WB. Schiff never said his office wasn't contacted by the WB.
How am I "aware"?? I can read. I read the Summary. I read the Texts. I listened/read the testimony from the Volker, the ICIG, the acting head of IC, the former Ambassador
"The WB claim did not correspond to the transcript of the phone call?" IS another lie. WHY? 1) There is no transcript available to compare it against and 2) the WB claims correspond exactly with the Summary and other evidence.
"Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo walked back her announcement that the Justice Department inspector general's report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses would be released on Friday." - that said, I wish he would release it. Hopefully it will clear up many things and get the Republicans off of their witch hunt which as no more substance than their Benghazi fiasco.
How do you say "Of course, the collusion with Russia was proven false after 2 years and millions of dollars of effort, " with a straight face Wilderness? You know that is an absolutely false statement.
What Mueller couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that an actual conspiracy took place (although I still think Manafort met the criteria). He provided tons of evidence that the attempts were made.
We will. Unlike Trump who does things without thinking (like tell Turkey it's OK to murder the Kurds), the Democrats want to do it right and build an air-tight case.
Personally, I think they have enough right now, but I am guessing they want it so dead-to-rights that all but Trump supporters will vote any Republican who doesn't convict out of office the first time there is a chance.Trump won on a no-war no-policing other countries' agendas. He has accomplished all but eradicating ISIS and felt it time to pull out of Turkey. He seemed to put his trust in Erdogan to keep his word in regards to not committing atrocities against the Kurds. Erdogan immediately attacked the Kurds.
Today Trump announced he was redeploying troops to Syria and was slapping turkey with crippling economic sanctions. Woooo--- and all this in one week. he can chew gum and walk too. I appreciate Trump can switch gears quickly when he need be. He very quickly realized Erdogan was not keeping his word and handled the situation This is what's called governing. This is what tells the world America will not sit by and watch atrocities. This is governing through strength, and doing what's right. I for one never again want to live through watching America sit by and witness genocide.
There is no case, there was no wrongdoing. The Dems appear foolish by even pursuing an impeachment without a crime. Think Horowitz, think facts, think indictments. We will have some real crimes to discuss. This will be refreshing.Sharlee, I hate to tell you this, but we aren't pulling our troops out of Turkey. I also hate to tell you Trump has done nothing to get us out of conflict. I further hate to tell you, Trump is NOT redeploying troops TO Syria - he is deploying the OUT of Syria.
I have yet to see him actually impose sanctions. Ask yourself this, even if he does, how many MORE Kurds will Trump be responsible for killing before sanctions have any impact; how many Kurds would Turkey have murdered if Trump had kept our troops in place and not told Turkey it was OK to invade?
Why is it EVERYBODY but Trump knew Erdogan would not keep his word?
How is it "governing" to agree to let Turkey invade Syria against the advise of everybody and is only reversing course because he is about to lose his Senate Republican support.
Trump is making America look very weak and indecisive. It is embarrassing to be an American in the Trump era.Nobody cares about the Kurds, why would they? (they - governments, UN etc.) They are of no financial importance. Turkey is though. And America has never looked at the morality of things when it came down to working with other countries. Erdogan is a dictator and constricted free speech in Turkey. Has put thousands of teachers, intellectuals and scholars into jail. But who cares. Business is business.
Just as the US and the rest of the western world will never put sanctions on the Saudis. As money is more important then human rights.Unless this is sarcasm "Nobody cares about the Kurds, " - THEN THAT is what is wrong with your kind!!! If that is not truly your feeling, great, but it is how many on your side actually think, including your hero.
Sadly enough it is not sarcasm it's reality. I'm not talking about me personally but about the politics that's been there for years on end. When was the last time the UN or the US or any country stood up for the Kurds? Same can be said about the Palestinians!
Personally I think there is a great injustice done towards the Kurds and the Palestinians and many other minorities living in a country.
But if you don't have money, oil or other precious resources, no country will care about you. That's the sad part of the capitalist age we are living in. And that's something that should be changed as hard line capitalism made the west morally bankrupt.
No, we actually are having troops continue to police and help protect the Kurds.
Today the president announced he will place sanctions on Turkey as well as redeploy troops to Syria to police the. ongoing problem. As well VP Pence will be leaving immediately to Turkey for talks to try to bring an end to this accelerated aggression on the Turkeys' part.
I am pleased he reevaluated the ongoing worsening situation and has worked quickly to help the Kurds. It well appears he listened to those around him as well as recognized that Turkey was not going to keep their word in regards to not attacking and killing civilians. This is the third time he stepped up to help stop atrocities in Syria. I very much appreciate this type of governing. Way To Go, President Trump, America should never again sit on the sidelines and witness genocide. We can't police indefinitely but we can't turn our backs on such killing.
https://hubstatic.com/14715951.jpg
Why do all of the Generals to which TraitorTrump *and his mindless supporters) once said were so great and now insults say things like this:
Earlier in the day, retired four-star Admiral William McRaven, the architect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said Trump was working to "destroy" the country from "within" and "without."
Mattis went on to joke that "the only person in the military that Mr. Trump doesn't think is overrated" is "Colonel Sanders," the founder of the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food restaurant chain.
Mattis insisted that Trump's comments didn't bother him. Mattis riffed that he "earned my spurs at the battlefield" while Trump "earned his spurs from a letter from the doctor"
McMaster bluntly trashed his boss, said the sources, four of whom told BuzzFeed News they heard about the exchange directly from Catz. The top national security official dismissed the president variously as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner,” the sources said.AND A sixth source who was not familiar with the details of the dinner told BuzzFeed News that McMaster had made similarly derogatory comments about Trump’s intelligence to him in private, including that the president lacked the necessary brainpower to understand the matters before the National Security Council.
We see much evidence of the latter statement daily from Trump.Those Mueller notes are producing some interesting information that may be used in his impeachment.
This isn't one of those, but goes to show the corruption of his advisor and son-in-law.
SUBJECT - Re: Jared Kushner Sealed Real Estate Deal with Oligarch's Firm Cited in Money-Laundering Case.
That was the subject line on an email to Steve Bannon from some redacted person a Brietbart. Interesting.Isn't it stretching things just a little when the topic of a conversation is used as proof of corruption? When the actual text is hidden, and assumptions are drawn from the fact that a topic is to be discussed?
HAPPY DAYS!! Despite Conservative's best efforts, the Equal Right's Amendment will become an essential part of our Constitution. THANK YOU VIRGINIA.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics … index.htmlDeleted
Would you mind explaining why you find the President giving his objective opinion on the media a violation of his oath of office? I see it as free speech.? Actually he has as much right as you or me to state an opinion, and speak his thoughts. Not sure what the impeachment charges will include, it just may be one of the charges will be a violation of his oath of office. However, I don't think his repeated statement s in regard to the media could be used against him.
In regards to federal extortion, the president has the full right to veto aid to any given country, as well as the right to ask any country we have treaties with to aid in investigation an American citizen. Last I heard both Bidens are just that.
The president had the right to shut the government, for budget issues. It's just that simple. Not sure why you feel this action would be used in the impeachment process? If they could have got him for shutting the government down due to his wall funding, they would have brought him up on impeachment long ago. I don't think anyone knows as of yet what the charges will be or even if the Dems will proceed to impeach? We are still at the inquiry stage.
Although it will be interesting to hear the charges. I am sure they have many in mind. Maybe abuse of power?"Objective"???? Only dictators declare the free press "an enemy of the people". People who actually believe in democracy do not do such things.
Read your Constitution again. The President does not have the right to veto funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose - that violates specific laws.
Only dictators can shut the government down - a president cannot. The only way the President can shut the government down is by vetoing appropriations bills and the Congress does not override the veto. So, you are wrong there.
The Articles probably will be:
- Obstruction of Congress - guaranteed
- Obstruction of Justice - 95% chance
- Abuse of Power -guaranteed
- Violating the Emoluments Clause - 25% chance
- Bribery - 85% chance
- Extortion - 75% chanceDeleted
Sharlee: Maybe this will help your understanding of why they are having the inquiry.
Let's stop calling it Quid Pro Quo. What Trump did is called bribery. He tried to bribe the President of Ukraine by holding back funding for the Javelin Missile system until he agreed to find dirt on the Biden's for the purpose of his own political advantage.
Trump even asked him to make a public announcement to the world. Further, he had Guilani and his henchmen running a parallel shadow government that was trying to usurp the authority of the ambassadors and diplomats assigned to the Ukraine.
Trump went so far as to get advice from Sean Hannity who has no official government office, but who was an ex bartender. Trump even had some of those people removed from office as a result of Guilianni's and Hannity's advice.This is the comment that I responded o. I was very simply hoping this gentleman would explain his view on --- "Is violating one's "oath of office" an impeachable offense? If yes, then every single time that TrumPutin has called the media "an enemy of the people", he has violated his "oath of office".
I found this comment to hold no legal truth. It's that simple. He chooses to leave a snary comment in return instead of defending his view.
Compete comment BRUCE UTTER WROTE:
"Going through with impeachment is the right thing to do. It shows that congress is willing to do the job that our Constitution tasks them to do.
Is violating one's "oath of office" an impeachable offense? If yes, then every single time that TrumPutin has called the media "an enemy of the people", he has violated his "oath of office.
Is violating one of the federal extortion statutes an Impeachable offense? If yes, then when TrumPutin threatened to shut down the government if congress did not provide him with funds to build his Mexican wall, he committed an impeachable offense and a federal felony."
I appreciate your comment as well as your view. As I understand it the
Javelin Missile was being purchased by Ukraine. Please read the link it gives a good explanation of the sale and the pending sale of Javelin missiles. The funds that were held back for a few weeks were aid funds the Congress had approved for Ukraine.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/javelin … d=65855233
Trump's phone call transcript certainly is clear in regards to him asking the president of Ukraine to investigate the Biden's as well as the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. It appears for some reason Trump felt CrowdStrike had something to do with Hillary Clinton's lost emails?
My problem with "Bruse Utter" seems to assume he knows what charges will come out of the impeachment inquiry? I have naturally heard plenty of what the public assumes will be the charges. I think at this point no one has any idea what they will be or if there will be an impeachment. We are at the ts point conducting an inquiry. That's all she wrote...
Just my opinion, but I feel they will have one charge that might stick, abuse of power. All the rest of the allegations that are floating around seem flimsy. None of them hold real crimes in my view. The president's authority to hold back funds and ask a foreign country to aid him in an investigation will be hard to argue."The president's authority to hold back funds and ask a foreign country to aid him in an investigation will be hard to argue." -
Biden, at the behest of Obama, European diplomats, International Monetary Fund, and many others, threatened to withhold $1B in "loan guarantees" to Ukraine if they didn't fire a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't fighting corruption. (also, neither Burisma nor Hunter Biden were under investigation)
Now, whether withholding a loan guarantee violates the law or not, I am not sure, but threatening to do so does not - IF it is for national security purposes, which it was. But since the threat wasn't carried out, no problem.
TRUMP, however, not only threatened to, but actually did hold up real aid appropriated by Congress on his own authority. That, in and if itself, is illegal if he didn't get Congressional approval - and we all know he didn't.
Tie that to the fact that holding back the aid, which is bribery, was done for personal gain and not for national security purposes (which nobody but Trump, without evidence, is claiming) makes it doubly or triply criminal and/or impeachable.
That is just the facts of the matter.Not sure why you feel had a problem with the Biden/Obama asking the president to fire a prosecutor? This has little to do with Trump asking the new president to investigate Hunter Biden and his association with the Ukrainian gas company he was on the board of being paid over 50 million a month? Yes, it could appear they hired him to gain access to the White House, and should be investigated and cleared up one way or the other. His association with China should also be looked into.
In regards to the president asking a foreign country to aid in an investigation, he has the authority to ask any foreign country we have a treaty with to help in an investigation of an American citizen that he feels has committed a crime in their country. The president should look into any form of crime or election irregularities if he is aware of it. If he felt the Biden's had committed some form of crime, it's his duty to have it investigated. Biden is running for the presidency of the United States, and if there is a chance he committed the crime of selling his access to the WH, he should answer for his crime.
I see no bribery, the funds were provided rather quickly. President Zelinsky stated he felt no threat and did not realize the funds had been held up. Seems to me the Dems have little to stand on.
The more I hear and read about the impeachment process the more I feel this a waste of time. This is a political ploy that will backfire in the end. However, it will work to wake up both side's base and make for an ugly election. More bitterness more hate... The Dems have taken a huge gamble.
.Oh buggers, Scott, do you realize the irony of your response?
"Biden, at the behest of Obama, European diplomats, International Monetary Fund, and many others . . ."
Why didn't you stop at "at the behest of Obama"? Are you implying that Biden should act at the direction or "behest" of all those others you mentioned? Do you realize how that rationalization looks in print?
Are you aware that your description of Biden's actions is exactly the same as the description of Pres. Trump's actions? You may claim Pres. Trump is doing it for personal gain and Biden was doing it for national, (and world?) gain, but the actions seem to be exactly the same - withhold aid until a demand is met.
Then you say you don't know if withholding something, (a loan guarantee), is illegal, but withholding aid is. Was the loan guarantee approved in the same method as the aid package? Or was the loan guarantee solely on Pres. Obama's authority? (a real question - I didn't check it out) Aren't the circumstances and the goal of both the same?
Yet, to you, it was okay for Pres. Obama to do it, but not Pres. Trump? (of course, I am speaking of the action alone) If Ukraine had not fired the guy and the guarantee was withheld would that have been an illegal act by Pres, Obama? Would that be different from the Trump delay of the aid monies?
I agree with you, facts do matter. Are all the facts of the two actions in conflict, or just the ones that justify the validity of one and the criticism of the other?
GA"Do you realize how that rationalization looks in print?" - Actually, no. Especially since it is the truth. Everybody in the West wanted that guy gone, Biden just pulled the trigger for them since it was in our national interest to do so.
I thought I was clear in making what is to me an obvious distinction. Biden "threatened" to withhold "loan guarantees" but did not do so. Trump both threatened and actually withheld appropriated funds without getting permission from Congress to do so. THAT is illegal if he didn't get permission.
The best I can tell, a loan guarantee is treated as appropriated money so, if Obama made good on Biden's threat, Obama would have probably had to secure Congress' permission. But since Obama did not do withhold the guarantee, he needed no permission.
Trump. on the other hand, doesn't bother with Congress, he just does what he wants most of the time.
There is also purpose. Since Biden and Burisma were not under investigation, there was no "personal gain" aspect of it, just national and world security interests.
Since the ONLY so-called corruption that Trump has said he was interested in had to do with getting him elected in 2020 then that was for personal gain and there has been no showing of a national security interest since everything he has claimed has been thoroughly debunked.
Finally, back to Biden - what everyone seems to forget is that Biden had no power to carry out his threat even it were for personal reasons - only Obama could have done that. But in any case, the point is mute since there is no hint of impropriety other than what the Right conjures up in their imagination.
If Trump were truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, then he should have followed proper channels - 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did and 2) failing getting what they want, go to Congress to reauthorize those funds
What still would have had to checked out was whether the threat itself was for national security reasons, as was the case with Obama, or was it for personal gain was it is for Trump.M.E, The differences and distinctions between ObAma and Trump seem quite clear to me.
Me too! One is suave, very PC, always interested in furthering party interests, very willing to run down the US to anyone that will listen and always operated behind a veil of secrecy and spin.
The other is loudmouthed, obnoxious, couldn't care any less about party platforms, openly declares the US is the best in the world and doesn't bother to hide his tracks.That may be true, Wilderness, but one is honest and a patriot and Trump is a crook and a Russian sympathizer. I know which one America needs and I know which one Russia needs (and help win).
"If Trump were truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, then he should have followed proper channels - 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did and 2) failing getting what they want, go to Congress to reauthorize those funds"
1, 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did. (Quid pro quo). A favor for a favor...
Trump did not threaten Zelinsky in regard to holding funds, in fact, president Zelinsky claimed to have no knowledge the funds in question were being held up. Trump held up funds without threat and released the funds after discussing and requesting an investigation of the Biden's and CorwdStrike. Trump, was assured by Zelinsky he would investigate as asked. The money was released without an open media threat or any form of publicity before there was any need to accuse anyone of anything... The president has the authority to ask another country to investigate an American citizen that may have committed a crime in their country. It was clear the way Trump handled this matter he was not willing to make a circus of it, as Obama did. The Dem's have stepped up and made a circus of it. A circus that will cost taxpayers money, and our country embarrassment. Because in the end, the circus will leave town with their shabby tents.
Obama/Biden made an open threat on TV... In the end, the prosecutor was fired, the cash was released... Pro quid quo. A favor for cash. You can call it whatever you please. Both presidents had the right to hold funds if they felt there was a corruption problem. It is very clear due to the phone call Trump asked the president of Ukraine to looks into a possible crime. Hunter Biden certainly raised a good cause to be investigated. After his dad became vice president he snagged two lucrative positions on boards of companies that his education or experience would offer any value. He had one value, his dad. These companies both corrupt, and would have much to gain with a route into the White House.Again, the truth must come out.
- There was a 2) to the 1) which you overlook to make your misrepresentation.
- You keep ignoring Ivanka, Jared, and Trump Jr. who actually ARE using their association with Trump to get rich while there is ZERO evidence that Hunter did.
- I don't believe Biden made the threat on TV - he related the story on TV.
- Biden's threat was legally advancing the national security interests while Trump's actually DID withhold aid for illegal personal gain. There has been ZERO evidence presented that what Trump did advanced the national security interest, only rhetoric.
- Ukraine received no cash, we only guaranteed their loan.
- The president DOES NOT have the authority to "hold funds if they felt there was a corruption problem." IF it is done for the personal gain of Trump
- Bursima was never proved to be corrupt, the investigation was over by the time the West was pushing for the corrupt anti-corruption prosecutor removalYou are headed far off track... Our conversation has had no mention of any of these persons. I have no reason to feel the Trump children have broken any laws? They have not been indited for any crimes or do I know of any open investigations into any of them? Perhaps better to stick to the subject.
" You keep ignoring Ivanka, Jared, and Trump Jr. who actually ARE using their association with Trump to get rich while there is ZERO evidence that Hunter did."
Yes, Biden did speak of his threat that he posed of holding 1 million dollars unless a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.on TV.
Joe Biden's TV interview where he claimed he held 1 million dollars until demands were met.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o&t=4s
Yes, it is legal for the president to put a hold on aid. And is commonly done.
President power to hold aid funds (Yale Journal of International Law)
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil
Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/sorry-dem … stigation/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … e-offense/Then you don't think Hunter Biden broke any laws either, I assume. Then why is Trump wanting him investigated if he did nothing wrong??
"Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation." - Again you misrepresent the facts. So again, let me point out:
1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes
2. It IS NOT legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for personal gain purposes.
So which are you trying to prove with your sources? National interest or personal gain - it makes a differenceTrump's children did not sell their name for pay to play... Hopefully, the Biden's are investigated. I could not imagine if one of the Trump children took money from Ukraine, China, and Romania to sit on boards they had absolutely no expertise to offer.
"During a closed-door deposition earlier this week, a senior State Department official Deputy Secretary of State George Kent told House impeachment investigators that he raised ethical concerns about Hunter Biden’s business ties in Ukraine with then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015, two sources familiar with the deposition confirmed Friday to ABC News, but was ultimately rebuffed.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/diploma … d=66369013
Trump asked Zelinsky to investigate the Bidens. Hunter was no board of a gas company when he had no experience in that field. It would appear Hunter was a channel into the White House... This certainly could pose a security problem. It has been reported that the Biden's is being investigated by the new Ukrainian prosecutor.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics … index.html
1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes. Please read the link.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil"1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes. Please read the link. "
If that is all Trump had done, perhaps you would be right. He put conditions on receipt of funds that were already approved by Congress. Extortion is illegal.What I have been able to decipher is that it is not illegal for a president to hold aid money to a foreign country for a given amount of time to return his concerns on the funds for any given reason. He is required to offer his concerns to Congress why he held the funds. Not sure if Trump went through this procedure before holding the funds? I have not been able to find any information if he did.
So, it would appear he abused his power. I think it would be hard to prove extortion in a trial. Due to the fact he released the money before he had results or the actual investigation he requested. Plus the Ukranian is so far claiming at the time of the call they did not know or realize the funds were being held.
I will agree with you this all appears to be a plan to force the President of Ukraine to initiate an investigation into the Biden's by holding funds up. It just seems te scenario will be hard to prove. The president certainly abused his power and this to me is as bad as extortion. It's a cheap ploy and an embarrassment to our country.Wow, that's a big admission from someone usually staunchly behind Trump.
Kudos for an objective and non-partisan point of view.
I spent a lot of time trying to differentiate between extortion and bribery; I am still uncertain if extortion applies, but bribery clearly does. Also, it is a crime to threaten it and a bigger crime if carried out. The "threat" is akin to "attempted" as in attempted murder or attempted robbery. Even though you didn't succeed, you still committed a crime.
Now, I will argue that Trump committed attempted bribery. Bribery has two essential elements: 1) I will pay you this if 2) you give me that. I this case, Trump effectively said "I will give you your $400 million IF you investigate Biden for me.
It makes no difference if the $400 million was already appropriated for Ukraine, Trump took that off the table by putting a hold on it (according to Mulvaney). With the money on hold, Trump could now bribe Zelenskyy with the release of it IF Zelenskyy would do the investigations into the Bidens that Trump wanted.
Zelenskyy was to go on CNN the day (or the next day) when the blowback from the wistleblower story forced Trump to release the $400 million to tell the world that he was going to do Trump's bidding. After Trump announced the release, Zelenskyy canceled the interview (according to Zelenskyy and the interviewer). Therefore, we only ended up "attempted" bribery.Did you spend a lot of time deciding what Hunter Biden did for his board position in a Russian energy company? Is that bribery or extortion or quid pro quo?
Your double standard is very telling.
Everything about Trump is negative and he needs to prove his innocent.I don't care what Hunter Biden did for Burisma. I know you don't believe in a free market where employers and employees can come to a mutually agreed upon employment terms. Strange, I thought conservatives would support Biden trying to get the best deal he can.
You are almost right, most everything about Trump is negative.Face it Scott, they don't care if Trump is corrupt. Why? Because they voted for him and cannot admit they f****d up. Bottom line...
The only people that can’t accept it is you. You can’t believe how a Trump got to be president fair and square. You grab at straws and come up with all kinds of theories and made up crimes to explain it...
The only obvious answer is - Trump is a winner. He is like king Midas.
Keep it up and you will be disappointed again..."Fair and square." Like anything he's ever done is fair and square. Today we learned Trump added Doral to the list of G7 sites even though it wasn't originally considered. With Trump properties losing vast amounts of money he wanted to cash in on the summit.
Even you ought to realize this is a money grab by your hero, Jack.The man gave up his salary to be president.
He donated to many charities...
He is worth Billions...
Do you really think he used the office to make a few bucks on his hotels?
What a joke.
It just show how out of touch with reality you have been all along.
As president of the US, he would stand to make millions like President Obama right now...with his memoirs and his Netflix documentary...and his speeches...probably to Golden Sachs...You don't know if he has billions or owes billions, Jack. You make a claim you can't prove because he refuses to release his tax returns. You're being willfully duped by a lying, arrogant, self centered asshole. But you'll learn more about him in weeks to come.
I believe in free market and capitalism and free enterprise. The problem with Biden is - IT WAS NOT A FREE environment . My son did not have the same opportunity as Hunter. He is more qualified and yet he did not get a board position that gets paid tons of money. The fact you ignore this shows how dishonest you are and how you failed to understand the basics of capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder you support socialism of the Democratic party.
"Trump's children did not sell their name for pay to play." - THEY didn't??
https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivanka-t … rademarks/ AND she just got some more from Japan.
I hope they investigate her, Jared, and Jr. they deserve it. Of course, they will probably be in jail once the State of New York gets done investigating and indicting them.
"told House impeachment investigators that he raised ethical concerns about Hunter Biden’s business ties in Ukraine with then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015, " - YES HE did, I even heard him. BUT, neither DOJ (who under Obama was an independent agency) nor the Republican Congress found any reason to pursue it. Why Not?
"Hunter was no board of a gas company when he had no experience in that field." - and so you think you know better than the free market and Burisma? Also, the Ukrainian's DID investigate and dropped it WELL BEFORE Biden used leverage to get a corrupt prosecutor fired. FACTS MATTER
Couldn't get your Digital link to work.Hi Sharlee. I also hold the opinion that it may be hard to prove that Pres. Trump asked for these investigations of the Bidens purely for personal benefit.
I think it is entirely plausible that he can defend his actions as being in the national interest because there was obvious corruption in UIkraine. But, from what I have seen, and based purely on my perception of the 'facts/details' presented, I have little doubt that Pres. Trump asked this favor for his own personal benefit of hurting Joe Biden's candidacy.
So I ask a simple question: Do you believe Pres. Trump's Ukraine actions were solely for the national interest?
GA"I think it is entirely plausible that he can defend his actions as being in the national interest because there was obvious corruption in Ukraine. "
- THAT of course begs the question, Shar and GA, that if that were true, why did Trump only focus on the debunked Hunter Biden job, the debunked conspiracy theory that Joe Biden did his son a favor, and the debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory interference? Why didn't Trump focus on corruption in general? Why only those three examples that relate directly with his on election?
I think Trump's focus on only those things that help him personally and his ignoring of the broader aspects of Ukraine corruption (which apparently Zelenskyy was starting to do real things about) speaks volumes [u]against[/b] the idea that Trump had national security in mind. (Plus the fact that it is his defenders and not Trump or the White House that is making a cohesive and forceful case for that theory)I am glad you asked me that question. My comments have been solely on how I feel the impeachment battle will proceed to a big nothing... Due to our own laws. I do not think the Dem's will be able to prove .quid pro quo. In my simple opinion, I don't think the president was seeking to follow through with a blackmail scam. I do think he was willing to push the new president to the point of thinking his funds would be held if he did not cooperate in the investigation of the Biden's. It was a cheap scam that backfired on him. Trump played with fire.
I believe Trump did this to get dirt on the Biden's to use in his campaign This dirt along with the Horowitz/Durham investigations. would give him powerful ammunition against the Dem's. Do I think the Biden's worked a pay for play scam, a pathway to the White House, yes I do...
So, do I believe President Trumps Ukraine's actions were solely for the national interest?
This question id hard to answer. In a way, the investigation of the Biden's may serve our National interests. If the Biden's used the office of the Vice Presidency to promote favors for cash it certainly would be beneficial to bring that kind crime into the light. It well appears the Obama administration in 2014 noted Hunters' newfound appointments to foreign companies boards. They did not carry the ball and investigate when this seed was planted.
However, Trump instead of taking a proper pathway a legal path to investigate the Biden's he did not. He chose to clearly abuse his power, and in my opinion, he may have done it for personal reasons to further his chances of winning in 2020. Although on the other hand he also promised to drain the swamp. It well appears the Biden's may have been swamp monsters. It seems we are willing to sweep many crimes under the carpet. Maybe we need to start cleaning under that carpet not adding to our problems by voting in a president with possible crimes hanging over his head.
So, could have Trump had two motives? Perhaps he did. However, to answer your question. I think he had personal motives when asking Zelinsky to investigate the Biden's. He may have also thought in the end he would be pointing out very corrupt behavior that went on during the Obama administration. I find it hard to condemn one without full facts. Hopefully, the impeachment proceedings will uncover the facts. Hopefully he Biden's will be investigated as they should have been in 2014.
Hopefully, I have answered your question. Your question although simple is very complicated, and requires me to condemn without all the facts. So far I think Trump abused his power of the office of the presidency. That is very clear. I will hold judgment on any unknown charges.Shar - " I do not think the Dem's will be able to prove .quid pro quo." - YOU don't think Mulvaney's admission of a quid pro quo is proof enough?
"They did not carry the ball and investigate when this seed was planted." - As I understand it, they did and found nothing. Also, the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time didn't object either.
Finally, Holmes testimony today (the guy who heard Trump talk to Sondland) should seal the deal based on his opening statement and leaked testimony. He heard Trump ask Sondland if Zelenskyy was going to investigate and Sondland said yes.
Holmes also asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine and Sondland replied something to the effect that Ukraine means nothing to Trump and that "only the big things" do. Asked for clarification, the "big things" were the investigations into the Bidens.In my opinion, it will be very hard to prove quid pro quo as I have said from the get-go. I do think they will concentrate on the abuse of power. It very well appears to be a quid pro quo. It just would be hard to prove due to the means Trump used to initiate it. There were 12 people listening to the call. Trump's team will say there was no intent to present a quid pro quo. Plus it now seems Congress was aware of the funds being held up.
I read the Cnn article on the Holmes testimony. The call was witnessed one day after the Trump/Zelinsky call. So I would think Trump would have asked Sondland if Zelinsky was proceeding with the investigation. The rest is hearsay. It will depend on what Sondland said about the call and the conversation he had or did not have with Holmes. We do not know if Sondland will confirm the information Holmes provided? Even if he does it is very much Sondland giving his opinion on what he thinks Trump thinks of Ukraine. He offers no specifics to Holmes why he feels Trump cares little about Ukraine. In the end, trump has been providing aid and selling Javelin missiles systems to Ukraine since he entered the office. Which it is in the record that Obama did very little in regards to aid, and nothin in regards to defense weapons. It would be hard to say or prove Trump did not care for the people of Ukraine.
"Holmes also asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine and Sondland replied something to the effect that Ukraine means nothing to Trump and that "only the big things" do. Asked for clarification, the "big things" were the investigations into the Bidens."
It is very clear TRump wants the Biden's investigated. He put it out in the call for the 12 that were listed on the call, he was not hiding that fact. This is one reason it will be hard to prove he had alternative motives. Did he have alternative motives, In my opinion after following this mess, yes he did? Will they prove he did, most likely not.
The opinion of what Sondland is just that an opinion. he offers no real examples (as of yet) of an actual quote from Trump to back up his own opinion. We need to keep in mind if this goes to a trail much will be hearsay and not allowed, and if allowed for some reason will still be considered by many as just hearsay.
So far they have nothing that I feel is an impeachable offense or an offense that the Senate would vote to impeach. I will say his tweet yesterday in regards to Marie Yovanovitchha's job performance put a sour taste in many mouths. I consider it the first nail in the coffin, please be aware this is only my opinion.
Yes, you answered the question Sharlee. Thanks. We seem to agree that appearances support what many claim; he did it for personal gain.
GAIt does appear he did it for personal gain. It's so odd he had to have known with so many listening to his call, and knowing about the aid funds being held he would have deliberately chosen to go this route. He seems to be craving more and more attention? Consider his tweet yesterday in regard to Marie Yovanovitch's job performance. So uncalled for. I must admit this is scary...
Trump has spent a lifetime saying and getting what he wants -- first as a spoiled child of a rich man and then being given a company he didn't build.
He has lived 70 years without consequences until now.
That's not a criticism. It's just the way he is.Right...living the American dream...buying off politicians in NYC, including Hillary Clinton when running as Senator, attending his wedding...
He was a great donor before he ran for President, now he is the devil reincarnated...
Go figure. The media had no problem with Trump until he announce he was running...
Hollywood loved this guy with a top rated reality show...
He had cameo appearances on many top movie blockbusters...
Now he is a white racist...
Who are you going to believe? Paul Krugman or Jack Lee?I believe eyewitnesses, U.S. ambassadors, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, our former allies, three Congressional committees, etc.
I especially find that Trump's own comments and tweets do a great job of condemning him.
But if you would rather believe Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and the Russian Times, that's your right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlYes, that is the beauty of a democratic system. We are free to choose who we believe.
However, there is one caveat.
Those media sources have a record of being right or wrong. The people you sighted have been right about Trump, about the Mueller investigation, and about this phoney impeachment inquiry...
On the other hand, CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC and Washington Post...have been dead wrong.
I am pragmatic. I go with the people who are right not the one that lied...Yes, that is the beauty of a democratic system. We are free to choose who we believe.
However, there is one caveat.
Those media ources have a record of being right or wrong. The people you sighted have been right about Trump, about the Mueller investigation, and about this phoney impeachment inquiry...
On the other hand, CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC and Washington Post...have been dead wrong.
I am pragmatic. I go with the people who are right not the one that lied...
"he did it for personal gain"
I never thought that I would hear conservative voices, represented by you and Sharlee, ever admit that.
You both are going to give me a heart attack....
Now that that fact is agreed upon, don't you both believe that the President is guilty of abuse of his office, through what had to be either accepting bribes or extortion?I must remind you I never defend his narcissistic personality. I have appreciated his progressive agenda and his job performance. I knew his history in regards to his personality. I also had the opinion he would blow Washington wide open, which he is well on the way of doing. He has accomplished many of his promises, and it appears he is still dedicated to keeping his promises.
However, he is showing the very ugliness that has been going in Washington long before he ran for office. Not sure we were ready for such a large dose of ugly? At this point, I see he is being pushed into a corner. That tells me he will come out biting like a pit bull, as he did with his disrespectful tweet about Marie Yovanovitch's job performance.
I think he could care less at this point about who he takes down with him. I think the next few months will be some of the most controversial months the country has experienced in a very long time. He should concentrate on the job, his agenda. However, it is apparent his personality will not allow that. I predict he well knows what Durham and Horowitz have found, and this shoe will drop, most likely with shocking revelations. One thing about Trump, he seems to always have the last say, the last word.
In my opinion, this is a no-win situation for Dem's or Rep. This is all too sad."I also had the opinion he would blow Washington wide open, which he is well on the way of doing. " - This is what many Trumper's wanted and it seems they are unconcerned about the damage to America that is being done while he is doing that?
I have had an opportunity to talk to some people from overseas lately and they are appalled at what America has turned into. I am serious, they don't think we are any better than a third-world dictatorship because of what Trump has done with the Republicans aiding and abetting him. They seriously worry about the crumbling partnership with Europe and his turn toward Russia, Trump scares the hell out of them because they can no longer count on America to have their back.Sharee, i am not so keen on his "agenda", but I live with him as long as he stays within the confines of lawful behavior as President, in spite of the fact that I do not like what he represents. What happen to the idea that a "leader" takes responsibility for actions of his or her subordinates?
This is a "corner" of his own making. Why would you attempt such a thing as this Ukraine fiasco, when there was so much heat on him and his administration, already? If he did not know better, his advisors should have interceded, but listening and contemplating the results of an action ahead of time is not something he does well, and is a trait I look for from one who would be my leader. Poor judgement, being impulsive and impetuous is the last thing we need from the "leader of the free world".
As I have said for a long time, his personality and temperament is not a fit for the position he holds. He needs to return to New York and resume the role of billionaire mogul, and get his old TV show back."As I have said for a long time, his personality and temperament is not a fit for the position he holds."
At this point, I have to agree with your sentiment. It well appears he is abusing his power. I can also see his agenda is stalled and will remain stalled if he wins four more years. I would think China will slow down negotiations, and North Korea and Iran will hold out for a new president. He has overplayed his hand and will lose some base over his recent actions. He should have stuck to doing a job and kept his personality in check.There are many who voted for Trump who are not the "deplorables" and as his behavior sinks in, it seems to be not good for him. Many people said they were voting for him to take a chance, to shake things up. Well, they took that chance, and things got shook, that's for sure. I also understand how so many felt about voting for Hillary...they just couldn't do it.
Admitting the guy just doesn't have the personality to be President, isn't admitting that you were mistaken on the direction the country needs to go in, or anything of that nature. It is only what it is. It's clear you understand this Sharlee. As more people understand this, more people are likely to jump off the Trump ship.On the other hand, it just may be that people are starting to realize just how corrupt our federal government really is for decades. Trump in his odd way, has exposed them for whom they really are.
How the State department and politicians work hand in hand to bring favors to their family members...
How the intelligence community was being used to investigate and trap Americans and spy on them...
How the media has been working on behave of the Democratic party to affect election outcomes for a long time...
And how they spin stories to protect one party members while attacking the other...the double standard applied.
Finally, we see them as who they really are, just like the HBO show House of Cards, where truth is stranger than fiction and the deep state is alive and well corrupting our democracy at the expense of the public...On the other hand, it just may be that people are starting to realize just how corrupt out federal government really is for decades. Trump in his odd way, has exposed them for whom they really are.
How the State department and politicians work hand in hand to bring favors to their family members...
How the intelligence community was being used to investigate and trap Americans and spy on them...
How the media has been working on behave of the Democratic party to affect election outcomes for a long time...
And how they spin stories to protect one party members while attacking the other...the double standard applied.
Finally, we see them as who they really are, just like the HBO show House of Cards, where truth is stranger than fiction and the deep state is alive and well corruption our democracy.The sure signs of a brainwashed mind is when they truly believe that it is thousands of dedicated civil servants, working in concert with one another, who are lying rather than the PROVEN liar and law-breaker (Trump Foundation he pled guilty to) - Donald J. Trump
You don't see that as silly, Jack? Come out of your alternate reality and join us in the real world.DOH! Jack cannot see the forest for the trees.
Jack is SO brainwashed, he can't even see the trees either. Trump says it, he repeats it with no neural activity in between - that is the only way Trump supporters can support Trump.
AND THAT is why Trump is going to lose; why he is upside down in approval rating in states like GA, AZ, IA, NE, MT, NC, FL, OH and several more.
The FACT IS Trump has not gained any voters (the few brainwashed young people who can vote next year are offset by the rabid Trump supporters who died) while he has lost lots of them in the states that matter. Who has he lost?:
- Many Farmers and their families who went bankrupt because of him
- Democrat who voted for him that care about morality and other things than the economy
- Anybody with a conscience who was conned by his promises
REMEMBER - Trump won by ONLY 80,000 votes (thank you Russians) spread over three states that lean Democratic to begin with.
If the vote were today and based on what each state thinks about him right now, he would lose 394 - 143.
Sharlee: What is the source for your information?
I will be glad to provide my research sources. Which statement would you like a reference? Here are a few I based my opinion on.
Joe Biden's TV interview where he claimed he held 1 million dollars until demands were met.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o&t=4s
President power to hold aid funds (Yale Journal of International Law)
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil
Pesidents Phone call transcript
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics … index.html
Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/sorry-dem … stigation/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … e-offense/
Opinion
"Hunter Biden certainly raised a good cause to be investigated. After his dad became vice president he snagged two lucrative positions on boards of companies that his education or experience would offer any value. He had one value, his dad. These companies both corrupt, and would have much to gain with a route into the White House."
"Everybody in the West"?
I still don't see the validation. Biden didn't work for the "West." Why do you think that changes things? It was still a quid pro quo, whether it was just for us or for all of the West too.
And your "threatened" point . . . Wouldn't that fall to the it doesn't have to be successful argument similar to an obstruction of justice charge?
However, your "purpose" point is a valid one, but not one I addressed as pertinent to the points of my comment. One of those points being Biden's action was just as much a quid pro quo, (or a bribe in current parlance), as Trump's actions. It is only your purpose point that makes a difference.
And as to Biden having the "power" to carry out his threat . . . wouldn't you think that anyone understanding that Biden was speaking for the president would also think that he had the power, (even if it was secondhand through the president), to back up his threat?
And finally, in the most friendly of picky jibes, (and only because I see so many others make the same mistake), the proper use and spelling is 'moot', as in beside the point, or now irrelevant, not "Mute" as in no sound. ;-)
GANo worries Scott. I would have blamed it on Spellchecker or Grammerly. By the way, I highly recommend Grammerly. Check it out if you are unfamiliar.
GAI used Grammerly when writing my book. I did like it.
Don't lose the impeachment forest for the trees.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics … index.html
As I am always searching for an entry point Mike, your last statement provided a golden one;
"Trump went so far as to get advice from Sean Hannity . . ."
Of course, it is just my biased opinion, but, I think Hannity is an unscrupulous water-carrier and change channels the instant I hear his voice, (along with Ann Colter(sp?)), and to hear that anyone, especially the president, asks his advice is almost unbelievable to me.
GA.
Well, the latest CNN poll about the impeachment has neutral news for Trump supplicants and good news for those who believe in Truth.
OVERALL, there is no change in the top level numbers of who supports impeachment, think Trump did something wrong, or should be impeached.
- NO CHANGE: 50% of Americans think Trump should be impeached while 43% do not.
- NO CHANGE: 47% of Independents think Trump should be impeached while 45% do not.
BIG CHANGE: 61% of Women now support impeaching Trump. up from 56%From the House Intelligence Committee Report on the Trump - Ukraine Affair:
"In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.' ” [ME - and he has emerged as Donald J. Trump]
"The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution." [ME - for this occasion, they allowed for Impeachment]
"Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachment was not designed to cover only criminal violations, but also crimes against the American people. “The subjects of its jurisdiction,” Hamilton wrote, “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. "
"As he [James Wilson, delegate from PA] noted, 'impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.' "
"As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. "
The July 25 call is central to the investigation. In this call " In response to President Zelensky’s appreciation for vital U.S. military assistance, which President Trump froze without explanation, President Trump asked for “a favor though”: two specific investigations designed to assist his reelection efforts." [ME - the "freeze" is a separate crime in and of itself]
The report claims "months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President. "
"The damage the President has done to our relationship with a key strategic partner will be remedied over time, and Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress. But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. "CONTINUED
"Indeed, most of the facts presented in the pages that follow are uncontested. "
"If there was one ill the Founding Founders feared as much as that of an unfit president, it may have been that of excessive factionalism. Although the Framers viewed parties as necessary, they also endeavored to structure the new government in such a way as to minimize the “violence of faction.” ME - Unfortunately, they failed.
"Today, we may be witnessing a collision between the power of a remedy meant to curb presidential misconduct and the power of faction determined to defend against the use of that remedy on a president of the same party."
"As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention, he was asked, “what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded simply: “A Republic, [u]if you can keep it.[/b]” [ME - and we are as close as we have ever been to losing it!CONTINUED 1
" In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to 'get over it.' "
"Shortly before he was patched through to President Zelenskyy, President Trump spoke with Gordon Sondland. Ambassador Sondland had relayed a message to President Zelenskyy six days earlier that “assurances to run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump. Ambassador Sondland understood these phrases to refer to two investigations politically beneficial to the President’s reelection campaign: one into former Vice
President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, on which his son sat on the board, and the other into a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election."
"Despite the falsehoods [about the Bidens and election interference], Ambassador Sondland would make it clear to Ukrainian officials that the public announcement of these investigations was a prerequisite for the coveted White House meeting with President Trump, an effort that would help the President’s reelection campaign."
"The White House meeting was not the only official act that President Trump conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. Several weeks before his phone call with President Zelenskyy, President Trump ordered a hold on nearly $400 million of congressionally-" [and didn't tell Congress which violates the Impoundment Control Act]
"President Zelenskyy promised that he would “work on the investigation of the case.” Later in the call, he thanked President Trump for his invitation to join him at the White House, following up immediately with a comment that, “[o]n the other hand,” he would “ensure” that Ukraine pursued “the investigation” that President Trump had requested."CONTINUED 2
"The record of the call would help explain for those involved in Ukraine policy in the U.S.government, the Congress, and the public why President Trump, his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, his hand-picked appointees in charge of Ukraine issues, and various senior Administration officials should go to great lengths to withhold a coveted White House meeting
and critical military aid from Ukraine at a time when it served as a bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe.
The answer was as simple as it was inimical to our national security and election integrity: the President was withholding officials acts while soliciting something of value to his reelection campaign—an investigation into his political rival."
"On April 24, 2019, President Donald Trump abruptly called back to Washington the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, after a ruthless smear campaign [Abuse of Power] was waged against her. She was known throughout Ukraine and among her peers for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms consistent with U.S. foreign policy and only recently had been asked to extend her stay in Ukraine. "
"The attacks against Ambassador Yovanovitch were amplified by prominent, close allies of President Trump, including Mr. Giuliani and his associates, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump Jr. President Trump tweeted the smears himself just a month before he recalled the Ambassador from Ukraine. "
"Following a ceremony in which she presented an award of courage to the family of a
young female anti-corruption activist killed in Ukraine for her work, Ambassador Yovanovitch received an urgent call from the State Department regarding her “security,” and imploring her to take the first plane back to Washington. When she arrived, she was informed that she had done nothing wrong, but that the President had lost confidence in her. She was told to leave her post as soon as possible."
Donald Trump has been impeached!
He is the ONLY first-term president ever to have been impeached!
He is only the SECOND elected president ever to have impeached!! (Johnson was not elected)"As the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, he addressed a rally in Michigan and said, "By the way, it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached." In that moment, the difference between Trump and former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton became starkly clear." - SAYS David Gergen, counsolor to four presidents, Democratic and Republican.
He Goes On:
"More to the point, both Clinton and Nixon were contrite and accepted responsibility for their behavior. Nixon, for one, resigned and said, "I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the nation." After Clinton was acquitted, he issued a public apology and went back to work, putting his grudges behind him."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/opinions … index.htmlMeanwhile Psychiatric experts are pointing to TraitorTrump's dangerous mental illness - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/psychi … mpairment/
Another Obama Legacy Trump is bent on Destroying and hurting America in the process.
Terrorist organizations, including ISIS have been rapidly expanding in West Africa. President Bush recognizes this and established Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008. Obama expanded the operation and, among many things, established major drone base in Niger in 2016 and deployed 7,000 troops across Africa.
Trump is, like in Syria, turning Africa over to the terrorists and our enemies like Russia and China and withdrawing from the "shithole" continent. (I bet he even said those exact words). His view is "if they can't pay for it, F--k them"; who cares if ISIS takes over Africa?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/opinions … index.htmlFor you POLL watchers out there, here is a handy little guide of who to trust and who not to trust:
'A' Rated Polls:
* Survey USA - bias: D - 0.1
* Marist College - bias: R - 0.2
* Emerson College - no bias
'B' Rated Polls:
* Mason Dixon - bias: R - 0.7
* Public Policy Poll - bias: D - 0.3
* YouGov - bias: D - 0.4
* American Research Group - bias: R - 0.3
* Quinnipiac - bias: D - 0.2
'C' Rated Polls:
* Rasmussen Reports - bias R - 1.5
* Zogby Interactive - bias: R - 0.8
* Harris Insights - bias: R - 1.3
'D and F' Rated Polls:
* Research 2000 - bias: D - 1.4
* Survey Monkey - bias: D - 1.5
* TJC Research - bias R - 4.5
* Strategic Vision - bias R - 1.6
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/I am guessing the TraitorTrump supplicants are dancing with Joy that Trump just declared WAR on Iran by assassinating one of the highest ranking member of Iran's gov't. Sort of like if Iran had assassinated Mike Espy.
Now all Americans must leave Iraq (and probably the rest of the Middle East) because they just became active targets.
Oh, then there is the fact that Trump threw out the Constitution (AGAIN) by not getting Congressional approval to assassinate an Iranian gov't official thereby starting a war.
Pompeo SAYS it was to disrupt an "imminent attack". If Gen Mattis had said this, I would believe it without question. But because a Trump supplicant said it, I must wait for verification from our intelligence community.
BTW - Am not saying the terrorists Trump ordered killed didn't deserve to die, they did; but it is the innocent Americans that will die because of his actions that don't deserve it.Mike Espy.? And how many people is he responsible for killing? This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Are you attempting to make a hero out of a Murderer? I must point out that President Trump has not declared WAR on anyone. This is once again something you believe that holds no truth. Trump just last week drew a redline, stating if Iran chooses to kill American's we would respond. As he did yesterday.
Yes, he has ordered that American's leave Iraq for there safety This certainly is a wise move. Iran has no other retaliation but.terrerisum. And it's time to stop this kind of threat. I realize many hope to keep the status quo. Letting the threat live on and grow, instead of solving the problem.
.The president made a decision to act, why would he ask a Congress that is clearly biased, and ineffective. He ordered a defensive move, and he had the authority to act due to this man's plan to kill American's. He was within his rights.
Pompeo's statement was clear. there was a threat to Americans across the Middle East. I suggest you listen to his statement. Pompeo is a distinguished man as well as a patriot. I am not sure how you have the nerve to question his ability or his patriotism? This shows a lack of respect, and I must add very shallow opinion.
" am not saying the terrorists Trump ordered killed didn't deserve to die, they did; but it is the innocent Americans that will die because of his actions that don't deserve it."
You are predicting once again, sort of like when you predicted the market crash when President Trump took office. One would think you would learn from your mistakes? Perhaps you wait until we see how this all plays out. As a rule, you scream fire! And we never see even smoke...
It well appears you thrive on hysteria. Why not just accept Trump is a president that makes every attempt to solve problems not sweep them under a rug.
I hate t bring in Obama... However, when he killed Osama bin Laden he did not inform Congress until after the deed was done.
"Four White House lawyers worked under intense security measures to deal with all possible outcomes of the 2011 operation, allowing the US to send soldiers into Pakistan without its consent, delay telling Congress, kill the al-Qaeda leader and bury him at sea."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 14751.htmlCome on Shar, put your thinking cap on and consider what I was comparing. To make it simple for you and make it more direct.
When Trump assassinated the 2nd most powerful person in Iraq, he declared war. If Iran assassinated Mike Espy, that would be a declaration of war as well.
Is the comparison clear now? Or are you of the opinion that American can go killing whomever Trump likes in Iran and he wouldn't be making war on them?
"I realize many hope to keep the status quo. Letting the threat live on and grow, instead of solving the problem." - And of course you are willing to send your kids to Iraq or Iran to fight this war Trump just started.
On the stock market crash, you are right, I underestimated the power of the tax giveaway Trump promised and delivered at the cost of skyrocketing deficits and debt.
I accept Trump is, unfortunately, President. I also know he is unfit for the job so we will have to continue suffering until he is gone.
Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. In any case, he had prior authorization and didn't need to inform Congress.Trump has not declared war on anyone. You were crying a few weeks ago that he pulled troops out of Syria.
"And of course you are willing to send your kids to Iraq or Iran to fight this war Trump just started."
You were more than willing to leave "our kids" in Syria. Your logic is hypocritical.
Trump does not appear to be a president that would not keep his word in regards to the redline he drew last week... Warning Iran not to kill American's. And I expect he will handle Iran if it becomes necessary. And I trust it will be swift and sufficient to solve the Iran problem.
I am proud of Trump's quick swift retribution.
Stock market crash? Good day to buy-in. Let's have a look-see on Monday... LOL
"Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. In any case, he had prior authorization and didn't need to inform Congress."
Neither did Trump!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … -soleimani
It was you that claimed Trump did not have the right to order the military strike on a known terrorist.
"Oh, then there is the fact that Trump threw out the Constitution (AGAIN) by not getting Congressional approval to assassinate an Iranian gov't official thereby starting a war."
No, Obama did not have the authorization to kill Osama bin Laden. He did not consult Congress, he did the exact same thing Trump did. Are you saying what Obama did is in some respect acceptable, and Trump's action was not?
It's very obvious something is wrong with you, your opinions are just so bazaar, and it seems you don't even remember your own posts? Your opinions are clearly hypocritical. Not to mention odd?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … -soleimaniUse your head and eyes, since I said once already, Shar. Assassinating a senior leader of a country is, by definition, declaring war.
As to Syria, I don't throwing your allies to their death is a good thing. You might, but I don't.
"No, Obama did not have the authorization to kill Osama bin Laden. " - Get smart Shar, Obama had the same authorization Bush did.
""Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. " - WHY do you Purposfully mix things up, Shar? I was talking Solomeina. I can't believe you think Trump killed Osama bin Laden. LOL.
The Manufacturing Index (PMI) has fallen to 47.2, the 5th straight month of contraction. It is now at its lowest level since June 2009
I thought I would publish some excerpts from the Prosecution's Brief that was submitted today. The defense submitted one as well, but they don't dispute the facts; they just say that what Trump did was not illegal.
- Article 1 - "President Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election for his own benefit. In order to pressure the recently elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to announce investigations that would advance President Trump’s political interests and his 2020 reelection bid, the President exercised his official power to withhold from Ukraine critical U.S. government support—$391 million of vital military aid and a coveted White House meeting.
FACTS:
1. During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelenskyy expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelenskyy to “do us a favor though.”3 The “favor” he sought was for Ukraine to publicly
announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.4 One investigation concerned former Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr.—a political rival in the upcoming 2020 election—and the false claim that, in seeking the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor four years earlier, then-Vice President Biden had acted to protect a company where his son was a board member.5
The second investigation concerned a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election to aid President Trump, but instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.6"
"Although these theories were groundless, President Trump sought a public announcement by Ukraine of investigations into them in order to help his 2020 reelection campaign.10 An announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into one of his key political rivals would be enormously
valuable to President Trump in his efforts to win reelection in 2020—just as the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had helped him in 2016. "
"The President’s own National Security Advisor characterized the efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations in exchange for official acts as a “drug deal.”12" --sworn testimony Circumstantial Evidence
"His Acting Chief of Staff candidly confessed that President Trump’s decision to withhold security assistance was tied to his desire for an investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election, stated that there “is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” and told the American people to “get over it.”13 " - video direct evidence
Speaking of the Trump-Giuliani-Sondland effort to get dirt on Biden "Another one of President Trump’s key national security advisors testified that the agents pursuing the President’s bidding were “involved in a domestic political errand,” not national security policy.14 " - sworn testimony from a subject area expert Strong circumstantial evidence
"And, immediately after speaking to President Trump by phone about the investigations, one of President Trump’s ambassadors involved in carrying out the President’s agenda in Ukraine said that President Trump “did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine,” and instead cared only about
“big stuff” that benefited him personally, like “the Biden investigation.”15 " first hand sworn testimony Direct evidence.
"Mr. Giuliani repeatedly and publicly emphasized that he was not engaged in foreign policy but was instead seeking a personal benefit for his client, Donald Trump.17" public record Direct Evidence
"Every relevant Executive Branch agency agreed that continued American support for Ukraine was in America’s national security interests, but President Trump ignored that view and personally ordered the assistance held back, even after serious concerns—now confirmed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)20—were raised within his Administration about the legality of withholding funding that Congress had already appropriated.21" - email evidence Direct and circumstantial evidence.""Although these theories were groundless..."
Umm. Won't we need a multi year, 50 million dollar investigation to find out if they're groundless? Or is the opinion of high ranking Democrats, without ever looking, sufficient to make that determination?Nope, they have plenty of evidence now with more coming in daily.
CONTINUED
FACTS
"In this case, an Oval Office meeting with President Trump was critical to the newly elected Ukrainian President because it would signal to Russia—which had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and still occupied Ukrainian territory—that Ukraine could count on American support. That meeting still has not occurred, even though President Trump has met with over a dozen world leaders at the White House since President Zelensky’s election—including an Oval Office meeting with Russia’s top diplomat."
"President Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in our elections [bribery] to secure his own political success is precisely why the Framers of our Constitution provided Congress with the power to impeach a corrupt President and remove him from office. One of the Founding generation’s principal fears was that foreign governments would seek to manipulate American elections—the defining feature of our self-government. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams warned of “foreign
Interference, Intrigue, Influence” and predicted that, “as often as Elections happen, the danger of foreign Influence recurs.” The Framers therefore would have considered a President’s attempt to corrupt America’s democratic processes by demanding political favors from foreign powers to be a singularly pernicious act.
"President Trump obstructed Congress by undertaking an unprecedented campaign to prevent House Committees from investigating his misconduct. " ... If the President could both avoid accountability under the criminal laws and preclude an effective impeachment investigation, he would truly be above the law."As is common with your "facts", they are nothing of the sort: instead they are opinions based on a hatred of the President.
"The “favor” he sought was for Ukraine to publicly
announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.
This is your opinion, not a fact. You need to work on understanding the difference.The body of evidence turns that "opinion" into FACT. Also LOGIC points to that conclusion as well.
- The ONLY thing Trump wanted was investigations into his most likely political opponent in the 2020 election and the view that his 2016 election was not legitimate (given he was giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia, I consider that Treason)
- There was NO connection made between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption
- There was NO mention of corruption whatsoever
- Smearing Biden would help Trump's election just like smearing Clinton did in 2016.
- Smearing Biden might cause Biden not to be nominated
- Smearing Biden has no other practical use.
The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives.
OH Yeah, over 70% of American share that "opinion".I have to ask...
"The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives."
Why the hell would you think Trump would need help to beat anyone of the Dem candidates. He will win in 2020 even with all this crazy BS that the Dems have thrown at him. In fact, the Dems have done nothing but give Trump a bigger forum to get his accomplishments out to American's.
With all of this crazy, he is a shoe-in. Thanks, DemsBecause he is paranoid maybe?
Because virtually every poll in every state polled has Biden beating Trump - handily in most cases. (remember, Trump lives and dies by polls)
That is why the hell why.
I have already shown you that most women will not vote for him again that voted for him the first time. You are one of the rare ones.
Trump can't win without the support of women and most women can't stand him."remember, Trump lives and dies by polls"
Yes, he certainly died by the polls in 2016, didn't he?
"The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives."
I have to ask... Why would you even think Trump would need help to beat Biden or any of the candidates in 2020?
Even with all the crazy BS the Dems have thrown at him from the moment he walked into the WH he is still a shoe-in. In fact, the Dems have helped him by offering him a bigger forum to get all his accomplishments out to the voting public. Plus a new chant --- "lock him up" it's just a matter of time before his crowds will be coining that phrase.
Just a hint --- You can thank your party for Trump, and his pending win in 2020. One would think you would have realized that? Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance.
Wonder why they just did not spend their time finding a great candidate?Sharlee: "Just a hint --- You can thank your party for Trump, and his pending win in 2020. One would think you would have realized that? Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance.
Wonder why they just did not spend their time finding a great candidate?"
I hate to go back to square one. Trump was impeached by the house because he violated his oath of office by not defending the constitution.
If he doesn't need help in 2020, why did he ask Guilanni and Zelinsky to find dirt on the Biden's? Why did he withhold the money to the Ukraine and then release it as soon as the whistle blower released his transcript? Why did he obstruct congress once he found out he was going to be impeached by the house?
The house impeached him because they don't want future presidents to do what he did? They have an obligation to do that as they are the overseers of the other two branches of the government. The Senate could care less because they are afraid of Trump and their jobs. It's not because they think he is innocent.
As I said before, the highest authorities in the land are corrupt, that includes Trump, Barr, Pompeo, Guilianni, et al. He is doing what he has always done when he is under attack. He hires high- powered lawyers to defend him and then he usually settles out of court.
He will not be impeached by the senate, but hopefully we can vote him out of office. Remember, Hillary won the popular vote. Trump won by rallying the electoral college states that yield the 270 votes with the least amount of voters. In my opinion, the electoral college is corrupt in itself when they can use faithless voters to swing the vote. That is now under SCOTUS scrutiny.To be polite, and keep the piece, I must state I just don't agree with the opinion you have expressed in this comment. At this point It would seem very repetitious to keep defending my view.
In regards to the electoral votes
"Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton 227, as two faithless electors defected from Trump and five defected from Clinton. "
In my opinion, he will do better this the next election."I hate to go back to square one. Trump was impeached by the house because he violated his oath of office by not defending the constitution. "
LOL Trump was impeached by the Democrats of the House (and ONLY the Democrats - not a single Republican voted to impeach) because they cannot win in 2020 without removing him from the race. That will shortly be shown when the Senate laughs at their charges and throws them in the gutter where they belong.
"In my opinion, the electoral college is corrupt in itself when they can use faithless voters to swing the vote. That is now under SCOTUS scrutiny."
Your opinion is worthless as there is no requirement for the EC to vote as the people do - we all saw the cries of liberals that Electors ignore their conscience and vote Clinton. Nevertheless, they generally do follow the will of the people. That 3 more defected from Clinton than from Trump had zero effect on the election.Wilderness: I agree, they will throw the charges in the gutter, but not because they are wrong, it is because they and you are afraid of the truth.
It's interesting that Trump's lawyer, Dershorwitz, is now saying that from a legal standpoint, Trump did nothing illegal. However, from McConnell's viewpoint, the trial is not about legal process, it is about political process.
And yet, during the Clinton trial, you have Dershorwitz saying that you don't need a legal basis to impeach a president, buy now he and Trump's team is saying you do. It's funny how lots of money can change a lawyer's view point.
So, is this trial based on legal process or political process? Trump knows he violated the constitution and that is why he never came forward, never allowed prime witnesses, and never allowed any documentation as evidence. Why would an innocent person do that?
The charade isn't from the dems, it is from the GOP senate, Trump, and his lawyers.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBZ9D32?m=en-us&a … InAppShare"I agree, they will throw the charges in the gutter, but not because they are wrong, it is because they and you are afraid of the truth. "
Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion, isn't it? We'll just have to see what the 100 Senators have to say about it; we've seen what the Republicans of the House had to say already.
Dershorwitz is 100% correct; the impeachment is a political move, not a legal one (not meaning it is illegal, just that law is not involved)
"Why would an innocent person do that? "
As I've said a thousand times in these forums, ignorance of an answer (that you wish to hear) does not give the right to draw any conclusion desired, OR to simply make one up that pleases you. Whether it is "Is there a God" or "Is Trump guilty" makes no difference; you cannot simply make something up that you want to be true. Not and expect reasoning people to agree, anyway - you can certainly say anything you wish, true or not.
Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer to your question. No sane person, after watching the fiasco of the witch hunt into Trump's alleged collusion with Putin to fix the last election, would give the House the time of day, let alone something new they can chase for more years in a fruitless search to harm their political opponent.
The only real question is how many more times House Democrats will try to remove their primary opponent from the White House over the next 5 years.The problem you have Wilderness is that Trump has no choice but to comply with the House subpoenas unless he makes specific challenges in court (of which 90 to 95% of previous tries, failed)
I see. Which is why he and his cohorts have promptly complied with all of them; because he has no choice.
Do you have any idea what the term "fact" means, Eso?
I suspect the prosecution will use Dershowitz's previous position that the articles do not need to include a real crime to discredit his current defense that is does.
I mean it is a stupid argument on his part. Back when the impeachment clause was written, there were no statutory "crimes" on the books, so it would be impossible for the framers to consider specific crimes. Further, and more important, they based High Crimes and Misdemeanors off of England's use of that phrase which clearly did include "non-crimes" in its application.
Now I know the Trumplicans don't care about the truth, they just want a rigged trial that will insure a guilty man gets off and we make this country look and act like Russia.
I do agree that Impeachment is a political process which is why no statutory crime needs to be stated. As it turns out, and imagine the prosecutors will go here, Bribery is an included offense of Abuse of Power.
It is a good thing this isn't a legal trial because when the defense claims Trump didn't get due process during the House impeachment process, the will be perjuring themselves and subject to disbarment and jail time."Now I know the Trumplicans don't care about the truth, they just want a rigged trial that will insure a guilty man gets off and we make this country look and act like Russia."
Now that's just another flat out lie (assuming that "trumplican" means anyone not on the bandwagon with you): they all want a completely fair trial. The house, through it's actions, defined what "fair" is; let's keep it that way.There is Graham who claimed he "would not be a fair juror"
There is McConnell who said he is coordinating the trial with the White House
There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial.
Is that enough for you?
https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-se … 09dbd.html
No, Trumplicans are like you, Graham, McConnell, Brasso, Scott - those that bend over and do Trump's bidding. Who isn't a Trumplican? Collins, Murkowske, Romney, Sasse, and a couple of others."There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial."
That's what I said: the Senate will use the same rules the House did. Pelosi set the rules and allowed only what she wanted to hear, what she thought would provide a guilty verdict. The senate should, out of fairness, allow what they want to hear, what they think will provide an innocent verdict.
Fair, right? Exactly as Pelosi set it up.You are making things up again Wilderness. The House followed the same rules the Republicans have used in the past and more.
- They let the Trumplicans and Republicans participate (and try to make a circus of) in every committee hearing. (Some Trumplicans deny that)
- They let the Trumplicans and Republicans ask any LEGAL question they wanted (the only think off-limits was the whistleblower's identity - some Trumplicans deny that)
- This is new I think; they asked Trump and his lawyers to participate in the Judiciary hearing - HE REFUSED
The defense is never allowed to participate in what is effectively a grand jury type investigatory proceeding, yet the Democrats allowed it (are required to actually) and the defendant is never asked to participate personally, yet the Democrats invited Trump - WHO REFUSED.
Now, according to the defense brief, the Trump lawyers are going to perjure themselves by trying to claim Trump didn't get due process.As the House impeachment was not a court of law, there WERE no "illegal" questions. Instead, there were lots of questions, and witnesses, that the Dem's did not want to hear, and that the Republicans were barred from.
This is the FACT of the matter, whether it agrees with your spin or not."Instead, there were lots of questions, and witnesses, that the Dem's did not want to hear, and that the Republicans were barred from." - LOTS???? Give me a break and be honest, Wilderness.
There was only ONE area out of bounds and that was anything that would lead to the identity of the whistleblower. That is it and the Chairman and a legal obligation to follow the law that protects his identity.So? How many witnesses were the Republicans allowed to call, and what was the process for doing so?
And how many were denied? What was the procedure for getting a Republican witness into the show (you forgot to describe that)?
There is Graham who claimed he "would not be a fair juror"
There is McConnell who said he is coordinating the trial with the White House
There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial.
Is that enough for you?
https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-se … 09dbd.htmlThe House let the Republicans ask (and got) relevant witnesses.
The House asked Trump to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearing (you don't let the accused be part of the investigation) and he declined.Last I heard no Republican got to call a single witness.
But if what you're saying is true, they were allowed to call witnesses...that the Democrats approved of. That is what "relevant" means, right? Only those the Democrats wanted to hear?
So...let that be the definition of "fair", and Democrats can call all the witnesses they want. As long as it is pre-agreed that they will only provide evidence of innocence. Fair.
The ONLY reason Republicans didn't vote for impeachment is because Trump threatened to cut their nuts off if they did. That is the kind of guy he is.
Sorry PeoplePower but our founding fathers were counting on "faithless" electors to be independent in order to keep things honest. They did not want political parties influencing the election of a president. Their system was quickly corrupted by the parties.Is that first paragraph just more sarcasm, or do you mean it to be true? Judging by other comments, you could well mean it as factual.
"Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance." TOO BAD for you, you have no data to back up that opinion.
Of course it turns opinion in to FACT...in YOUR mind, using YOUR "logic". The only difference between us is that I understand the difference between FACT and opinion; you don't seem able to distinguish them when it comes to finding fault with Trump.
Just like considering that speaking to Russia was Treason; you know the definition as well as I do, and there was nothing even resembling Treason, yet you will call your opinion FACT.
Just as stating there was no connection between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption, when you have zero to base that on without an investigation. Opinion, then, not FACT.
Smearing (finding corruption) with Biden has no use...to YOU, and therefore no other practical use...any more than finding criminal activity from Al Capone would. Opinion, then, not FACT.
Not that it would matter if 100% of Americans share your opinion, but even stating that 70% do is opinion, not FACT.
You just don't seem able to distinguish the two.The latest poll has 51% of Americans (48% of Independents) wanting Trump removed from office. Most impressive is that is UP from 36% a few months ago - people are getting smarter.
58% said he Abused his Power
57% said he Obstructed Congress
69% said there should be witnesses
59% of women want Trump removed from office for your benefit Shar
86% of blacks want Trump removed from office
65% of Hispanics want Trump removed from office
You know who doesn't want him removed? Trumplicans."Smearing", in case you didn't know, is saying there is corruption when there isn't any. It was established a long time ago by Republicans that there was no corruption. Consequently, Trump is just making it up.
OK smart guy, show me where in either of the calls, or anywhere else in the public domain, where Trump establishes there is a "connection between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption"
By not doing so, you are admitting you are wrong and I am right.
It makes me wonder what the Dem party has on the back burner when this impeachment fails? I have to say they have no problem moving on quickly after making fools of themselves. As do their followers. One would think Democrats would start demanding more from their party?
As it stands the prosecutors brief had nothing of factual evidence. It holds the same opinionated allegations they push in the media.
Trump's team has the constitution as well as the law on their side. It's so simple, you must stop assuming hearsay will cut it against our Constitution.
Trump will be exonerated in the Senate.An area of obstruction that I hadn't considered is the Intel Community.
Trump has politicized DOJ
Trump has politicized State
Trump has politicized DOD
Trump has tried to politicize the FBI
I had forgotten that with his last appointment, he has politicized the Intelligence Community to such a point that they are now hiding information from America as well.
Dictatorship, here we come. I hope you will be happy with living in a Russian state.If you don't think the Democrats have "politicized" the FBI you really, really need to go back and review their actions. Just as they "politicized" the IRS.
I figured you would project like that, Wilderness. But, as a matter of fact, before Trump, neither party politicized any of those organizations for a very long time. I think just after Lincoln with Andrew Johnson was the last time that was tried. That was why he was impeached. They had to bribe a Senator to stop him from being convicted, as it turns out.
It took a dictator wanna-be to do it because that is how dictators become dictators. Just ask Putin (who has probably given Trump his playbook).We get to see the Republican Senators cover up for Trump, Scott. They're terrified of Bolton and Mulvaney testifying, but no matter what they said, how guilty Trump appears, they are more afraid of him than the American public. I hope they enjoy their part of American history.
Well, Moscow Mitch officially did it, he pulled a Putin and is covering up Trump's crime by rigging the Senate trial with his draft resolutions. He won't even let the prosecutors introduce the evidence the House collected, let alone any new things. The man is simply unAmerican.
I suspect Schumer will submit amendments that will strip that and other horrible things out of the Resolution and will argue that the voters of Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Utah, and similar states with Senators up for vote will be watching closely to whether their Senator follows the Constitution or follows Trump.
Americans, not Trumplicans, have always shown they come down on the side of fairness and when they see their Senator toss that ethic into the garbage can, they will seek revenge at the ballot box.The 111 page Trump defense starts off with an entirely false and illogical premise - that their were statutory laws existing before the United States ever came into being.
They claim "By limiting impeachment to cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,”1 the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against “already known and established law.”
Here is the problem - there were no known or established laws created under the Constitution at the time the impeachment clause was written!!! They were referring to the English use and application of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that clearly included, as Alan Dershowitz once said, non-technical crimes.
I knew that Trump was dumb, but not this dumb.
ON Obstruction of Congress they state -
"The Framers restricted impeachment to reach only egregious conduct that endangers the Constitution."
What do you think ignoring Congress entirely is??
If Trump gets away with this then Congress might as well stay home and let the president enact laws by EO, as Trump has done. Since he or she can ignore anything Congress wants, why bother. Since the president can do anything he wants, whether it is criminal or not, why bother with laws they have to follow because they can get away with breaking them - just like in any third world nation.
They will go down in history as infamous as the Senator that let Andrew Johnson off the hook. It took a bribe to do that, history shows. I don't think Trump bribed these guys (who knows, it is his style) but he has threatened to figuratively (I have to put that in there for Wilderness' benefit so he doesn't get confused) cut their nuts off.
"who knows, it is his style"
More opinion stated as fact, or do you have proof of previous bribes? A conviction somewhere, maybe with jail time?How did I state any of that as "fact". You are making things up again.
Odd. How do you account for the IRS going after only right leaning non-profits then? Was it because all conservatives outfits are criminals?
I can't, because they didn't ONLY go after right-leaning groups. They went after the few left-leaning groups that made the same false applications.
But if you have 100 right-wing groups trying to abuse the system and only 3 left-leaning ones, wouldn't you expect more right-wing ones to be inspected. Now I don't remember what the real numbers were, but it was extremely lop-sided. So the whining about just the right-wing being picked on is simply BS.
It's time for Mitch to call for a vote to dismiss the articles due to lack of the House proving their case. Not to mention the fact that they never should have offered these articles to the Senate. The articles do not meet the Constitution's explanation of high crimes and misdemeanors. Enough is enough.
Yep, the same attorney who helped get OJ off is doing the same in this case. All the GOP needs to dismiss the case is any kind of excuse.
I predict the outcome from Trump's escaping from being made to pay for his crimes will be similar to what happened to OJ after his aquittal. Trump will scrtew up even worse next time.Unlike OJ, Trump's problems are already in the works. There are at least 6 state and federal investigations into him and his kids, all of which could land him in jail, where he belongs.
Could you add a resource to back this allegation? Six states... Please list those states as well as what the president is being investigated for.
Have you looked at how many "investigations" the 5 of them have seen in any given period in the last 10 years or so? How does it compare to the 6 they are in now?
Pure guesswork, but I'd have to think that 6 is not an unusual figure for such a group of people with such far-flung business interests.Wilderness and Sharlee: You want to talk privilege and nepotism. Jarred and Invanka are both senior advisors to Trump. Neither have ever held a political office or I venture to say are knowledgeable enough about geopolitical issues to advise their way out of a paper bag. It's just that daddy trusts them.
They both applied for secret clearance and were rejected by the clearing agency. So what does daddy do? He gives them both top secret clearances so they have access to the highest level of secrecy of the United States Government in any world wide geopolitical situation daddy wants them to be in.
I was cleared for a secret clearance with crypto access and the clearing agency went to Italy to interview my relatives for character references. And even at that, I worked with the National Security Agency and they only gave me access to stuff I could prove that I had a need to know.
Let's talk about Biden's son. He was on the board of directors of Burisma. How many board of directors do you know who are knowledgeable of the day to day workings of the company? All it takes is big bucks and a buy in vote by the other board members.
It just so happens, his daddy was Vice President at the time and was investigating the Burisma for corruption as ordered by Obama. Aid was held up for the Ukraine until the corruption was removed.
And this all happened before Hunter was even working for Burisma and Trump was even president. It was not for personal gain of election advantage like what Trump and his cohorts did."Neither have ever held a political office"
Neither has Trump. Your point?The point is that neither would have gotten those positions without influence from their father who works in government. On one hand, there are calls in investigate nepotism with the Bidens, but then ignore the nepotism of the Trumps.
No, the point is that one was hired on the board of directors, in a for-profit business, without having any significant experience in business and the other was hired in a political position, for which no experience is necessary, as plainly shown by the President's hiring by the people.
You're trying to say the two are identical but they are not.
"Nepotism" is not defined as Dad getting son a job in a business he has not stake in.
nepotism
[ˈnepəˌtizəm]
NOUN
the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.
Biden did not give his son a job; he (may have) forced an unrelated business to do so through the use of political power. Trump's children could be the result of nepotism, though.
TRUMP'S LIES DURING THE 2020 STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH.
First things first - why did he have to award the highest civilian honor, the Freedom Medal, there is to the misogynistic racist and divider Limbaugh?? That award as now lost any meaning.
TRUMP said: "Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world, by far,"
{b]FACTS FIRST[/b]: "The US did not become the world's top energy producer under Trump: It took the top spot under the Obama administration in 2012, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration."
TRUMP said:"Trump claimed "the unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low" under his presidency."
{b]FACTS FIRST[/b]: This metric has ONLY been tracked since 2008, so "All Time Low" loses its meaning given that the first 4 or 5 years of existence was impacted by the Republican Recession.
TRUMP said: "The unemployment rate for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans has reached the lowest levels in history," Trump said in his speech.
FACTS FIRST: It is true that the unemployment rate for these three demographics continued the significant trend set by Obama, but he didn't keep up the rate of decline. In fact, there was an uptick in all three Dec 2019. The question is whether it will continue to grow in Jan 2020?
T
