The Impeachment of Donald Trump!

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 350 discussions (5162 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image92
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    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?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image61
      Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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...

      1. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        And so it shall.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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."

          1. Ken Burgess profile image89
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            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.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "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=afMofYie4Lc

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            A 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 figure

            1. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You 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.

              1. Valeant profile image85
                Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                  Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

              2. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

    2. peterstreep profile image81
      peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        What makes you think that?  Isn't Trump asking a foreign leader to help him win in 2020 enough reason to impeach?

        1. peterstreep profile image81
          peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I was personally opposed to doing it earlier.  With the Wistleblower, we now have a smoking gun of Trump's crimes.

          2. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              "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.

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, I did and many, many more things less bad.

                    This was easy to find - https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/anti … ti%20obama

                2. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

              2. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  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%.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. jackclee lm profile image85
                  jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  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%.

              3. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. MizBejabbers profile image91
                  MizBejabbersposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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).

                2. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    That is true Esoteric, the damage is incalculable and is growing by the day. This latest Ukraine affair may well be the last straw. He continues to push against the envelope, let's see if he can get out of this one?

              4. MizBejabbers profile image91
                MizBejabbersposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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!

            2. My Esoteric profile image92
              My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              MizBejjabbers, did you mean "Defense" rather than "Defiance"?

            3. profile image0
              promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. crankalicious profile image95
                    crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

              2. The Minstrel profile image80
                The Minstrelposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. tsadjatko profile image65
                  tsadjatkoposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Right on minstrel - let’s review what is really happening

                  https://youtu.be/ND40ur07Eyo

                  1. The Minstrel profile image80
                    The Minstrelposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes!!!!!

            4. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              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.

          3. Randy Godwin profile image61
            Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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! lol lol

            1. peterstreep profile image81
              peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. peterstreep profile image81
                peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Sorry, correction.
                With They I meant the top of the democrats who probably want a conservative democrat to win.

              2. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. peterstreep profile image81
                  peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  100% agree.

              3. peterstreep profile image81
                peterstreepposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                second correction. Changed my mind. This definitely looks like smoking gun and not just an election strategy.

              4. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                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?

        2. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            And what is corrupt about Clinton and Biden in the same way that Trump is truly corrupt??

      2. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        "It's not to impeach Trump"

        You must be from Florida...

    3. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        The evidence is now all out there and it is Terrible.

      2. The Minstrel profile image80
        The Minstrelposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        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!

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          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.

    4. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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."

    5. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "- 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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...

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              We must agree to disagree. My opinion is very much opposite yours.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I can see you are very much set in your opinion.  I respect your right to have your opinion.

          2. peoplepower73 profile image94
            peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                  peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Sharlee:  I just found this.  It may help you in understanding what socialism  is in our country.

                  https://hubstatic.com/14698986.jpg

                2. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                    Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Shar doesn't care as long as Trump sez it's so.....

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "BTW, 25% of Real @GOP NOW support the inquiry."

          I had not heard this. Do you have a resource?

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Various polls show Republican support for impeachment ranging from 10% to 16% versus about 5% from earlier in the year.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Actually, you seem to believe that breaking the law is not a reason to impeach a President.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    "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?

              2. Randy Godwin profile image61
                Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              3. profile image0
                promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                That's a rational, objective and non partisan answer.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                  Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree!

    6. Esmc686 profile image61
      Esmc686posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Another Trumpster who cares not about the rule of law. No surprise!

      2. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Good response.

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

      3. profile image0
        promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

    7. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      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 election

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        WOW, one would really think out od all this we would be voting on impeachment?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image61
          Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          They will Shar....they will.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            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.

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image92
              My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                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-abuse

                1. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  You 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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                    Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeah Scott, but Limbaugh sez…….

          2. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            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.

        3. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image92
              My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. peterstreep profile image81
                peterstreepposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. peterstreep profile image81
                    peterstreepposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                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

    8. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    9. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

    10. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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.html

    11. profile image0
      Bruce Utterposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "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% chance

        2. profile image0
          Bruce Utterposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. peoplepower73 profile image94
              peoplepower73posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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.
                    .

                  2. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    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

                2. My Esoteric profile image92
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Don't lose the impeachment forest for the trees.

                  https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics … index.html

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                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.

    12. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      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%

    13. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      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. "

      1. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        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!

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          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."

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            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."

    14. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      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)

    15. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      "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.html

    16. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Meanwhile Psychiatric experts are pointing to TraitorTrump's dangerous mental illness - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/psychi … mpairment/

    17. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      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.html

    18. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      For 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/

    19. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        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.html

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Come 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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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 … -soleimani

            1. My Esoteric profile image92
              My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Use 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.

    20. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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

    21. My Esoteric profile image92
      My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        ""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?

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Nope, they have plenty of evidence now with more coming in daily.

      2. My Esoteric profile image92
        My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        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."

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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".

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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, Dems

              1. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Because 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.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  "remember, Trump lives and dies by polls"

                  Yes, he certainly died by the polls in 2016, didn't he? lol

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              "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?

              1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                2. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image94
                    peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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

                  2. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  I guess we will have to wait and see who wins in 2020.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    That is true

            3. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

              3. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image92
            My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image92
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                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).

                1. Randy Godwin profile image61
                  Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Odd.  How do you account for the IRS going after only right leaning non-profits then?  Was it because all conservatives outfits are criminals?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image92
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

    22. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image61
        Randy Godwinposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image92
          My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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.

          2. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image94
              peoplepower73posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "Neither have ever held a political office"

                Neither has Trump.  Your point?

                1. Valeant profile image85
                  Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  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.