The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Good point. If he has nothing to hide, why does he stonewall everything?
Because it is a witch hunt. There is no stopping the Democrats. When did our justice system become guilty until proven innocent?
Gimme a break.
It is like asking a defendant “when did you stop beating your wife?”Jack, by withholding evidence, Trump is digging his own hole. Nobody is buying any excuse for stonewalling during such an inquiry.
You want to investigate Biden, fine. But that does not get Trump off of the hook if he withheld congressional appropriated funds for personal benefit.Why do you think it is a so-called "witch hunt"? Why is it a "witch hunt" to investigate real crimes??
Trump's campaign DID collude with the Russians, they just didn't conspire with them.
Trump DID obstruct justice, between 5 and 10 times.
Trump IS obstructing Congress
Trump IS abusing his power as president
Our justice system has NEVER been innocent until proven guilty UNTIL the trial phase. I thought you knew your law.That is one way of looking at it. Here is another way for you to consider.
What if someone is innocent and was framed? We are learning more about how the Mueller investigation got started.
It is easy for you to criticize seeing only half the story.
It is perfectly understandable for someone who is being framed by a corrupt DOJ, and FBI, to refuse to cooperate in a witch hunt...when he is expected to proof his innocence, when you have deep state individuals criticizing his actions at every turn. If you were in that position, how would you respond? I would be shocked any other politician could handle the pressure so well. Trump is acting precisely as Trump would in this situation. He is beating his opponent and driving them insane. These deep state people has never been challenged like they’ve been and never been exposed as to their corruption. I welcome these hearings...and the reason is the more they show the American people who they are, like Schiff, the more they dig a hole for their own burial. TDS on display...
This is the investigation phase. This is not the trial. When someone obstructs witness testimony, that is a crime. You are backing criminal activity. Let us be clear about that.
This is exactly how it works...accuses someone of a fake crime, the person objects and refuse to cooperate, and now you add obstruction to his crime...how predictable and how unAmerican and how stupid...
Fake crime? You were right earlier, TDS (Trump Denial Syndrome) is on full display.
So Trump can accuse Biden of a fake crime and you jump right on board and want investigations. Your hypocrisy is glaring.
Trump releases a White House memo that details him asking a foreign government to investigate his chief political rival, something not allowed under campaign finance laws, and you see nothing wrong?
And the fact that you believe a person with a history of lying and fraud over the government agencies sworn to protect America is the greatest example of your TDS.Wow, how did you manage to twist this around on me? I got to hand it to you. TDS applies to your side, not my.
My actions and views are consistent and based on common sense and fair play and our rule of law and our justice system and on the Constitution.
Where as, your side rely on rumors, innuendoes, hearsay and just hate...
Unfortunately for you, that is not how it works.
Trump did nothing that warrants impeachment.
Adam Schiff, on the other hand has a lot of explaining to do...
This is what I don't understand at all about defending Trump on this matter. Why wouldn't Trump take steps to distance himself from the investigation if his motives are true? Why would he, instead, put himself from and center, by offering a quid pro quo, extorting, or blackmailing, the Ukranian President himself. Wouldn't there be a better way to go about ensuring this investigation is performed in an unbiased, professional, and thorough manner. Minus the specific evidence, already presented here, as to Trump's motives. Why would he do this if it were an above the board investigation?
Can anyone give an adequate answer to this? Maybe I'm missing something. And, no, just stating Deep State conspiracy nonsense is not an adequate answer. There are plenty of honorable Americans who are willing to investigate crime and corruption.I will explain it to you. If you read the United States of Trump by Bill O’Reilly, you would too.
Trump is a fighter and he never gives up. If you attack him, he will counter twice as hard. Second, Trump never apologize and never admit his failings. That is his MO. It has served him well his whole life. Why would he suddenly change?
In this case, he did nothing wrong. The transcript clearly show it. It is unelected bureaucrats in our State Department that felt they were offended and that someone has the gaul to change the way things have been done in terms of foreign policy and negotiations...
Trump is from the outside. He wants to shake things up, go a different direction and perhaps change the dynamics and just perhaps win for America. Does this make any sense to you?
He is a New Yorker and do you know how New Yorkers talk and act?
He is not from the depth of DC, the Halls of Congress, the State Department or K Street. He is an average Joe trying to move the needle for us.No, I don't see Trump as being a fighter having any relevance to the issue. The closest I see to an answer here is this:
"He wants to shake things up, go a different direction and perhaps change the dynamics and just perhaps win for America."
The problem is this does not explain his thinking as to why he would not have an investigation run without the appearance of him interfering in it. Trump being an "average joe" is just not true.
Apologies, I still have no real answer that better explains his motives on this very specific question.
The State Department is part of America. We should not give it all up to hand over to Trump. America was winning much more without Trump also.Jack, I don't think much of a person who is incapable of acknowledging his mistakes and won't admit it.
Many of us are not satisfied with Trump claim of innocence, your idea of the "American People" are just a bunch of rightwingers that would go to the grave for that man.
JFK had the courage to admit error in the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco. He invited the press to hold him and his administration accountable. Now, that was a real leader.
Trump is the swamp trying to clean the swamp, how futile is that?
Trump is nothing more than an avaricious Billionaire, what possible interest could he have regarding the common citizen? His record long before he got into politics pointed the same direction.
As for his exoneration in this Ukraine affair, that remains to be seen.That is why you don’t know Trump and you refuse to learn who he is and why he does what he does...
Trump knows if he apologize for anything, it would show weakness ...the media sharks will attack him mercilessly.
If you ignore the name Trump for one second, and just look at what he has achieved this past 3 years, you would have to conclude he is the most consequential president in modern history, probably even more than Reagan. Reagan only achieved greatness in 8 years and won over 49 out of 50 States in his second term. Trump will not be able to beat the electoral count but will still win by a landslide."That is why you don’t know Trump and you refuse to learn who he is and why he does what he does...
Trump knows if he apologize for anything, it would show weakness ...the media sharks will attack him mercilessly. "
That might work for you, Jack, but I want more from the person who claims to be my leader, small traits like courage and integrity, both that are solely missing from this man would be helpful.
as for Trump's reelection, I would not count my chickens.....Fine by me. You’ve been notified. It should not be a shock when it happens.
By the way, climate change is not an existential threat as claimed by your hero President Obama.
If it was, why would he buy a million dollar Mansion in Martha's Vineyard?
Shouldn’t he be driving around in a Prius?Jack, perhaps you can explain why it was necessary for Trump to smear the Ambassador's reputation before she was sent home? And yesterday while she was testifying before congress. Think about it and get back to me. I really want to hear your spin.
No spin. He is defending his reputation. This fired ambassador was being used by Adam Schiff to impeach Trump. What would you do, just sit there and take it...yes, that is what most all politicians would react. Not Trump. When he feel he was unjustly criticized, he speaks out. She was a partisan hack, a member of the establishment, who feels entitled to what she has done. In my mind, she was an unelected bureaucrat serving at the foot of the President. He disagreed with her policies and approach, and he had every right to fire and replace her. Can you imagine if every time a president makes a move, a subordinate goes testify to Congress?
Nothing will ever get done. Do you eant this down the road when a future president is from your party? Let me here your response for the record.No spin. He is defending his reputation. This fired ambassador was being used by Adam Schiff to impeach Trump. What would you do, just sit there and take it...yes, that is what most all politicians would react. Not Trump. When he feel he was unjustly criticized, he speaks out. She was a partisan hack, a member of the establishment, who feels entitled to what she has done. In my mind, she was an unelected bureaucrat serving at the foot of the President. He disagreed with her policies and approach, and he had every right to fire and replace her. Can you imagine if every time a president makes a move, a subordinate goes testify to Congress?
Nothing will ever get done. Do you want this down the road when a future president is from your party? Let me here your response for the record.
There are a lot of conservatives who say that Obama should go back to the ghetto and not profit in anyway from his efforts after he left office. No other former president is held to such a lofty standard, and I certainly suspect and do not have to guess why Obama is.
Because we let the greedy Republicans have their way, the Canadian oil pipeline leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in North Dakota, funny that we don't hear more about that from Trump Central......What conservatives? Not me. I just thought it is hypocritical of Obama to warn us about climate change and then go and buy a mansion on the water...
If he truly believe in climate change, you think he would have a smaller carbon footprint. Al Gore was in a similar situation. His carbon footprint is huge and yet he wants us to give up our SUVs...Boy, you are really stretching to make a point Jack. I am guessing you associate that EVERY "mansion" has a large footprint without even engaging your mind.
Fortunately, sane minds will regain power in 2021 and start doing things to Save the Planet rather than Kill the Planet as you and Trump are trying to do.
O: Where are the facts? Prove this is true and not just a conspiracy theory.
'O' has NO RESPECT for the Constitution. Hell - he is probably one of those Russian Trolls; certain acts like one.
This meme is about as trashy, and un-American as it gets.
And the photos are fake. Show me where any of them appear in the Google database.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eric+ci … mp;bih=757Yeah. Just another reason why they are trash. Fake news...Trump is the king of doing exactly what he accuses others of doing. You'd think, by now, that people would start picking up on this. It is one of the oldest tricks in the sleazy con artist book. Yes, I know a bit about sleazy con artists, unfortunately.
Right, the Democratic party is full of them...Bill, Hillary, Nancy...Chucky...
You know what Jack, everybody has a LITTLE con in them, obviously you do, and so do those you mention. But, add them all up, including yours, and it makes a thimble full compared to TraitorTrump.
I don’t see it. Trump is a patriot. The traitors are some of the people serving in our government. They want to remove a duly elected president...any means possible. Trump has found a way to counter them...it is driving them insane. They can’t help themselves.
This impeachment inquiry is an excellent example. Thank God we have some people left in our government who understand the rule of law and procedures...
Adam Schiff is a disgrace. He should be sanctioned and stripped of his chairmanship.Then explain why, Jack, that Trump does everything in his power that means anything to advance Russian interests over that of our country?
- Why does he believe Putin over our intel agencies about the 2016 elections (oh, I forgot, you believe all of the intel agencies are in a conspiracy against Trump)
- Why is Trump giving Russia free reign to interfere in our 2020 elections
- Why did Trump turn over Syria to Russia?
- Why is Trump weakening NATA in order to make Russia more powerful?
- Why did candidate Trump tell the world he thinks Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the right thing to do?
- When told of missile capability in another country WHY did he believe Putin saying it wasn't true rather the FBI who was telling him this? (Oh, I forgot, you think the entire non-Trump supporting part of the federal government is conspiring against Trump, including the FBI)
You Have Been Brainwashed Jack!!! Sad.Your questions imply a certain position My Esoteric, and a couple of those questions seem to lack support for your inferred position.
Why do you think Pres. Trump is giving Russia "free reign" to interfere in our 2020 elections? I haven't seen any news that he has resisted any anti-election interference measures.
As for Syria, the alternative would be for us to continue to use Syria as a proxy to battle Russian aggression. To continue to maintain a counter-Russian force in Syria for decades to come. Is that the option you would choose?
*I should note that I have decided I don't like the decision to withdrawal those few dozens of U.S. support troops, but that decision doesn't mean I support maintaining a U.S. presence for decades - just to counter Russian objectives.
How do you think Pres. Trump is weakening NATO? It seems he has forced some NATO nations to affirm their commitments. (Are you speaking of his comments denigrating NATO?)
And lastly, where did you find Candidate Trump saying Russia's Crimea
invasion was the "right thing to do"? I am not defending his Crimea position--I think it has been weak and wrong, but I couldn't find support for the inference of your question.
GABecause he is doing nothing to shut down their interference and he is doing things to inhibit others from doing something.
- We will start with the fact that Trump still denies Russia interfered in 2016 and is trying to pin it on Ukraine which helps Putin's 2020 effort.
- Trump isn't pushing McConnell to pass needed anti-interference legislation (which tells me Mitch wants Russia's help as well)
- Why are Russia and cyber experts say that Donald Trump and a powerful Senate ally are downplaying these concerns and not doing enough to thwart interfering
- Why is Trump and McConnell forcefully pushing for paper ballots?
- Trump has “hollowed out” DHS who has a lot of responsibility for election security; they can no longer protect the nation
- Kirstjen Nielsen was warned by a top White House official not to mention worries about Russian interference in 2020 to Trump or suggest a cabinet-level meeting on the topic, to avoid riling the president. If Trump cared, he wouldn't be riled.
It is time to go to bed so I will stop here and pick up tomorrow.
Yup, nothing. Curious don't you think? Of course not, Liberals don't like to think.
Jack: You said the testimonies so far are hearsay. There are several people who were in on the call who have first hand knowledge of the call. They have all been subpoenaed, including Bolton, Pompeo, Kupperman, Pence, and Guilianni, but Trump has ordered them not to appear.
Doesn't Trump realize that each one of those are going to be a charge against Trump as obstruction of Justice? Why do you think he is doing that Jack?The answer is simple. He knows there is no good that comes from cooperating with a illegitimate investigation.
Why should he cooperate if he knows he was being setup?
Obstruction charge will only hold water if there is an underlying crime...
If he knew there was no crime to begin with, why would he ack. this and let biased Democrats like Schiff has his way.
You know what they say, you can indict a ham sandwich..."Why should he cooperate if he knows he was being setup?" - Because he could prove that is the case. But since he knows Bolton, et al, will testify to the truth of the matter, he is too afraid to let it be revealed.
As a consequence, he gives the Democrats a made-to-order impeachment article - Obstruction of Congress.
That is a charge that no patriotic Republican Senator can vote against because they would be voting to tear up the Constitution.
You never answered the question why you do not believe in our Constitution anymore since what the House is doing is exactly what the founders wanted when faced with a criminal demagogue like Trump.
I see 'O' is projecting Again - just like a Russian Troll
Whoever the whistleblower is, they are the TRUE PATRIOT here while Trump is the true TRAITOR in every sense of the word.
Hear, hear! Aren't Trump's taxes due to be released by Wednesday of next week, Scott? Lil Donnie will be so pissed off if they are indeed given over to the proper authorities.
I am not sure. I haven't heard that the Supreme Court has issued a stay yet. But, I suspect they will until they decide whether to hear is case or not. I hope they forget, lol.
A whistleblower by definition is someone who exposes wrong doing by his superior...
This one is not a whistleblower. Not even close. Let’s hear from the people sitting on the call. Let’s subpoena them to testify...
Why are you putting up with these third hand knowledge people?Yes indeed. Just like Mark Felt, but with Trump's mafia ways, it make have taken even more cojanes to blow the whistle on him.
That is for sure, but I am sure people like Jack and Wilderness will call Felt a traitor as well. But clearly both he and the wistleblower should still be held up as true American Heroes.
Nothing but fake news from you as usual. Your idol is going down, and don't say you don't support him as your silly little meme proves it.
Wrong as usual Randy. You don't know me and you never will.
I know you as well as I want to, and I've never been wrong about you thus far.
Which is why you spent a month trying to get me to reveal my personal info...
Wrong again...I never wanted your personal info and didn't try hard to find it as I don't care about who you really are at all. Your claiming you're not a Trump supporter is plainly a ploy which fools no one.
Face it, anonymity is its own form of invisibility to those afraid of the truth.
We strongly suspect you are a Russian Troll based on your comments.
Trump visits Walter Reed for an unscheduled procedure. His annual physical includes a prostate exam. This first preparatory procedure was just to remove all the Republican Senators from his colon.
Ha...I literally laughed out loud on that one...doesn't happen often.
It's sad at the same time though.I bet they didn't get all of them because people like Pence and Pompeo were trying to get in.
Okay, that's enough now. Since I didn't get here first the best I can do is second hard sun's comment. ;-)
GA
Only in an alternate universe do people believe that public servants who have dedicated their lives to their country are all liars, but a man who spent his life dodging the draft with falsified bones spurs, avoided paying taxes by falsifying property values, bankrupted businesses, cheated on his wives, and defrauded investors, students and donors is the real patriot.
The only one who is clueless is you. This whole impeachment hearing is a complete sham led by a congenital liar by the name of Adam Schiff and orchestrated by a a house speaker not worthy to hold this office. Sad.
Prove your claim, Minnie. A partisan opinion means little here. You simply don't like it that the House has the duty of oversight over this cretin. The simple fact of you disparaging Schiff and Pelosi indicates you're like your chosen leader. Damn sad.
The only congenital liar is TraitorTrump. Schiff hasn't lied about anything, so you are making that up to make yourself feel good. Why do you keep insisting on calling the Constitution a sham. Sounds like something your friends the Russians would say.
Schiff was on MSNBC for 2 and half years lying about Russian collusion and Trump and having evidence... Do you deny this? There are tons of video evidence. It is like we live on two different universe. What is wrong with people that refuse to see the truth right in front of your nose?
This investigation of Tump is a sham.
By the way, Bill Clinton did not just cheat on his wife.
He was impeached for much worse and that is why he was disbarred.Do you have you examples of those lies and proof they are lies or are you simply repeating worn out conservative talking points?
Are you saying the meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyers DIDN'T HAPPEN???? While not conspiracy, in and of itself, it is collusion since the campaign was attempting to get dirt on Hillary from a foreign gov't.
"What is wrong with people that refuse to see the truth right in front of your nose?" - YOU Tell us since you are the on projecting.
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstructing Congress. Trump will be impeached for abuse of power, obstructing congress, obstructing justice, bribery, maybe emoluments violation, and I hope treason. You tell me which is "much worse".
Why do you keep insisting following the Constitution is a sham?? Why don't you believe in the Constitution, Jack??I am going by what the Mueller report said. Apparently, you didn’t like it.
Schiff was on MSNBC for 2 and half years lying about Russian collusion and Trump and having evidence... Do you deny this? There are tons of video evidence. It is like we live on two different universe. What is wrong with people that refuse to see the truth right in front of your nose?
This investigation of Tump is sham.
By the way, Bill Clinton did not just cheat on his wife.
He was impeached for much worse and that is why he was disbarred.Do you have you examples of those lies and proof they are lies or are you simply repeating worn out conservative talking points?
I am sorry, where are the lies you say your right-wing hit piece offers?? I didn't see a one, just a lot of innuendo.
I read it also. For someone who keeps demanding "real" evidence when it comes to Trump, this just doesn't make sense, unless you understand that it's really about defending Trump at all costs.
it is not about Trump, we are discussing about a member of Congress out to get Trump...Adam Schiff is a corrupt politician and the media is giving him a platform to lie and make false charges without impunity. Nancy Pelosi is a coward, appointing him to head up the impeachment inquiry.
what a bunch of clowns. no wonder our government is in shambles.
if an alien were to land on the White house lawn tomorrow, he would think we are all crazy for electing such low life to rule over us.The title of the thread is "The Impeachment of Donald Trump"
From the pubic testimony of Jennifer Williams, Pence aid who was on the call: It was unusual because "It involved what appeared to be discussion of a domestic political matter. " Uh oh.i know what the thread of this forum is about. we were talking in specific about Adam Schiff...who is intimately involved with Trump from day one?
do you see him as the unbiased arbiter of truth? if so, I have a bridge to sell you. hahaI'm talking about Trump...our President. Schiff is not my representative.
what do you mean? he is in the thick of this to his eye balls.
the President is going about doing his job. here comes Schiff, along with a so called whistleblower, accused him of something he did not do...
and he heard it from second hand rumors...
he apparently met with the whistleblower and coached him...
then we hear from someone on the call who does not like what he heard from the President. he works for the president...it is the president's job to form foreign policy...
do you want unelected low level staff people run our foreign policy? I don't...
this whole incident is so juvenile.
why are we wasting our time and money on this?
Schill has a lot to answer for. i want to place him under oath...", accused him of something he did not do...
and he heard it from second hand rumors..." - SO WHAT, Jack??? EVERYTHING the wistleblower told the IG has been proven to be true! Do you disagree with that?I mean Schiff is not my representative. I cannot even vote for, or against him. I can vote against Trump however, and he is the subject of Constitutionally valid impeachment hearings...not this Representative.
he can be sanctioned by the House of Rep. which he is a member...just as any other 435 members of the House. you are a cop out. you refuse to acknowledge how biased and corrupt this guy is who is trying to impeach the President. he is part of the deep state along with many officials at our State Department. ones that were cultivated under Obama admin.
he is the only ex-president that decided to stay in DC after his term. why?
iisn't he from Illinois?Is it a crime for a former President to live in Washington, Jack?
Your defense of Trump is no longer rational and delves into an obsession and continues to be ridiculous on its face.
Is this what you conservatives are all about?it is not a crime and don't put words in my mouth. it is insulting...
what I said was he was the only ex-president to stay in DC and inject himself in politics after he had 8 years to influence policy and failed at it.
he stuck around and try to protect his legacy which was rapidly disappearing with Trump.
There's more than one guy trying to impeach the President. I just refuse to make it about that guy when it's really about President Trump and his disdain for the Constitution and rule of law.
It is called DEFLECTION. It is what people try to do when they know they are wrong
I doubt that Hard Sun is copping out since going after a corrupt president doesn't make you biased and corrupt yourself.
For Trump and his supplicants to be right, the REST of the world must be wrong - and I doubt that is the case.
Further, Sondland is going to bury Trump today or go to jail for lying like Roger Stone did. He can't even plead the 5th because they will give him immunity. I bet he now regrets buying his ambassadorship for a million dollars!
Also, why sanction Schiff for simply following the Constitution??? It is Jordan and Nunes who need to be sanctioned for making fun of the Constitution that they swore an oath to protect but are doing just the opposite by trying to keep a corrupt president in office.you are assuming too much. the rest of the world? look who is delusional.
the rest of the world respect a strong leader like Trump.
only the left in the US including the media, hollywood, and the elite scholars of Ivory leagues, are against trump.
The world, and Israel welcome a strong presence of the US on the world stage, facing down Russia and China and Iran and North Korea.You need to open your eyes, Jack, and read/listen to things other than far right media. Then you would learn that Trump has turned American into a laughingstock and that many of them view us as a third-world corrupt country.
Why do 60% of Republicans think Trump did it??
Granted, and speaking volumes of GOP ethical standards, only 36% think what he did is "inappropriate". Speaking louder about lack of ethics, only 14% think it is impeachable.
Another very recent poll says that 70% if Americans think Trump did something wrong and 51% want him impeached.
I do have to amend the "rest of the world" hyperbole. Clearly countries like Russia think Trump did the right thing.
Sondland's statement was just released...he is stating there was quid pro quo, and it has some damning info about Giuliani; so it looks like he is going to bury Trump. The President's attempts to bury his behavior by preventing people to testify is not working.
We all know what Trump as done that is corrupt, but what has Schiff done that is corrupt???? I don't know of anything.
How is the media giving Schiff a so-called "platform"?? Are you telling everyone that the media should not cover the impeachment hearings of a President of the United States. Interesting.
The ONLY "cowards" are the no-balls Republicans who are too scared to stand up to Trump's dictatorship and save America from him.
do your homework. anyone can do a google search on youtube...
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/pl … d&tt=bLook, you said the lies were in the Federalist article - they weren't. So why are you sending me to some other far-Right site.
Which, by the way, only says that the RNC "accuses" Schiff of lying, so, still no lies.
Try again.
This about sums things up...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … mic-crisisAs I've pointed out before, you cannot educate the willfully ignorant. Great article!
You do not need to read an article to see what is happening here. Limiting witness testimony, shutting down Republicans from speaking, leaking only Trump damaging information, and bringing on witnesses with just hearsay information. This kind of sounds like abuse of power if you ask me. Whatever the case, we both think that each other is galactically ignorant no matter what we share. Fair enough. I need to go and lift some weights and plant some vegetables. I think I had enough of this forum scene. I wish you all well my fellow Americans. Praying for our country.
Why do you lie or distort like Trump Minnie??
- Witness testimony was not limited - Prove that it was
- Republicans were NOT shut down from asking legitimate, legal questions.
- Very little was leaked and, in any case, there is no positive stuff to about Trump. Virtually everything about him is negative.
- Investigators often listen to witnesses with hearsay evidence, that is the way it is done. You conveniently forget that this is an investigation and not a trial where hearsay is not allowed most of the time. Further, these witnesses have pointed to other witnesses who actually have first-hand information and that Trump cannot bully into not testifying.No, all one has to do is look at the crook's actions in the Ukraine. It's his MO to spread corruption as in the "One bad apple" scenario. Everyone around the cretin is compromised by him.
We get to hear from people today who were on "the call." So, there goes one of the primary defenses of Trump as to the impeachment hearings. Where will the goal posts be moved now?
Lt. Col Vindman: On July 25th I listed in on the call. I was concerned by the call what I heard --It is improper for the president of the US to demand an investigation into a political opponent. When I reported my concerns, I did so out of a sense of duty. The character attacks on distinguished public servants are reprehensible. The members of our all volunteer force come together to protect the US Constitution. We don't serve any party.
Did Trump ever mention corruption on the April 21st call? Vindman: "Not to my recollection."
Vindman: "It was improper for the President to demand an investigation into a political opponent especially to a foreign power."--Demand.Jack's claim that he read the Mueller Report is a lie. In the report, it makes it plainly clear that Manafort shared internal polling data with high ranking members of the Kremlin. This is a clear case of collusion. Giving them the data so they could target specific states with their social media campaign is definitely colluding.
I didn't say I read the report. I said I accepted the conclusions.
For a party that claims to adhere to Constitution, they sure don't seem to want to abide by it.
Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing for years, you only care because it isn't Obama.
the Constitution does not say a low level staff member in the intelligence community gets to remove the president by impeachment...
Jack: Schiff is not a low level staff member. He is Chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee. The inquiry is about determining whether Trump abused his power by asking a foreign president to find dirt on the Biden's for the purpose of an election advantage to Trump. If they can prove that, then they will write articles of impeachment that will be submitted to the Senate, where they will hold a trial to either impeach Trump or not.
The Democrats are trying to change public opinion to get enough people to see that Trump abused his power. The Republicans are trying to change pubic opinion to show that that the Democrats are on a witch hunt and there is no there there. Both sides are being motivated by the 2020 elections outcome.
Personally, I don't want Trump as my president for another four years.And that is not what is happening is it?? Like any good American, the wistleblower simply reported to the proper authority what he believed to be illegal acts. Are you telling me you would have kept that a secret?
But... but... what about? You know the President is screwed when this is the only defense. Why bother continuing to defend him?
These hearings are a disaster for the President. The other defense was that the witnesses didn't specifically state "bribery" in their statements. Lt. Col Vindman got a laugh when the Democrate Rep (cannot recall which one) compared this to someone getting off of an attempted murder charge because the victim did not state "He attempted to murder you" despite stating, "He's they guy who shot me."--Something else.
Morrison and Holmes have now both testified that they witnessed Sondland, at the behest of Trump, tell the Ukrainians that the release of aid was contingent on a public announcement of an investigation of Biden. That is, literally, the definition of a quid pro quo.
allI know is that it was not in the transcripts. people hear what they want to hear...that is the crux of the problem.
What was in the transcripts was Trump asking for a favor before helping with the javelin missiles. The favor being the investigations. Then, Sondland later tells Yermak that the aid is contingent on the announcement of said investigations.
There's no bias is this. This is plainly Trump corrupting the 2020 election and using his office to do so.if that is all he did, it was a lot less than what Obama did to help Hillary with the whole FBI spying...in 2016.
DEFLECTION again. I am amazed that someone who calls himself a conservative who supposedly believes in the rule of law thinks that Bribery is "that is all he did". If you read your Constitution, Jack, you really should you know, you will find that Bribery is an impeachable offense.
That's a seriously pathetic attempt to deflect away from Trump's crimes. Even for you. Getting a FISA warrant on a guy who had left the Trump campaign is hardly spying. But you keep being delusional buddy, it's what you do best.
you got no idea what went on. the IG report will be out shortly. you will be shocked at what was done in 2016 by our government against Trump.
if anyone should be impeached, it would be Obama, not Trump.The guy who had previously been under FISA surveillance for an attempted recruitment by Russians, took a job working for the Trump campaign, then went to Russia to meet with high ranking Russians who had just hacked the DNC. If you see no need for a FISA warrant, you clearly care nothing for national security.
Hi Jack, I'm just curious, did you watch the impeachment hearings yesterday?
How do you know what's in the IG report being released by the very trustworthy AG Barr?
You should read the summary of the transcript then Jack. It CLEARLY shows Trump asking for a "favor" (which Vindman and Hill took to mean a "demand") immediately after Zelenskyy ask for Javelin missiles. And then Trump tells Zelenskyy what those illegal "favors" are - investigate the Bidens who did nothing wrong.
That is by definition the two elements needed to prove Bribery.
"Was there a “quid pro quo?" Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — a close Trump ally and GOP donor — plans to say in his opening remarks to impeachment investigators. "The answer is yes."
"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he intends to say, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly delivered the message of that quid pro quo was to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland will say. He specifically cites a July 19 email copied to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and "a lot of senior officials."
"We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements," he says. "Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma"
Sondland intends to say he has no doubt Giuliani was "expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President."
"We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so."
https://time.com/5733847/read-gordon-so … statement/That goes along with this headline "Sondland: I pressured Ukraine to investigate Bidens at Trump's "express direction" "
Nunes face.
I don't think he's happy today.
I can hear the bus wheels thumping over Trump and Guilani a thousand miles from DC.
We can add Pence, Pompeo, et all to the list. According to Sondland, they were all okay with Trump bribing the Ukranian President in exchange for investigating the Bidens. Sondland regrets the situation the Ukranians were put in, but states he was just trying to break the log jam and doing as ordered. If this conversation with Pence is true, how do you trust Pence to protect the Constitution?
Anyone who sticks beside Trump the way he has cannot be trusted to protect the Constitution.
Yes indeed, Pence would be another patsy for the Right. What a wimpy dude!
BRIBERY: Element 1: An offer (bribe) of an official act (White House visit and Aid) for Element 2: for a favor, the announcement by Zelenskyy that he will investigate Biden for the personal benefit of the person giving the bribe.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
0Today's testimony in a nutshell:
The president ordered it. Everyone knew about it. It was quid pro quo.
Sondland decided he wasn't going to jail for anyone. Here is how the GOP is changing the framing on the investigation as it proceeds and becomes more incriminating for Trump.
A House GOP aide described the change in messaging this way: “It has gone from: ‘There is no quid pro quo,’ to: ‘There’s a quid and a quo but not a pro,’ to 'Even if there was a quid pro quo, it’s not that bad, this is just how things are done — you can say it’s bad, but it’s not impeachable.”We already know the GOP doesn't care about the corruption of this president. They only care about getting caught. Now, he's caught, so they have to try to convince his base that the crime isn't that bad. From what I can see, his base will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
I'm hoping at least a few of them will surprise us and decide that country is more important than being faithful to their dear leader.
PrettyPanther, have mercy.
Onusonusp doesn't have an opinion himself he only posts memes and quotes of others..which effectively stops a conversation..
The memes are a last resort in the defence of a morally corrupt president.No Onusonus.
The one of Valeant is a stupid one too.
I don't like memes to the left or right as they are superficial and are in the way of a discussion.
It's almost as though he's being spoon fed....
Not when their love for each is so clear. I'm just celebrating their bromance.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
Nunes, licking his lips and sweatin' bullets while incoherently questioning Sondland.
Quite the sight, eh? lol Hopefully, tomorrow will be better, because so far your comments seem to amount to he did what you said because you haven't seen otherwise.
GANo, it was for My Esoteric. You haven't said much for me to take issue with lately. ;-)
GAYeah, I've been trying to stay away from arguing with Trumpeters too much. There is only so much time I want to waste in a day. lol
The impeachment hearings have been pretty darn interesting the last couple of days, so I've been watching when I can. Plus, we have a new puppy. He's much more fun than this bunch of yahoos on Hubpages.
Not sure which "tomorrow" you are meaning but Sondland's "if you are asking if there was quid pro quo, the answer is yes" about says it all.
I agree there seems to be ample reason to conclude Pres. Trump was asking for a "quid pro quo."
However, I believe it is typical for U.S. foreign aid to involve some sort of quid pro quo. Do you think otherwise, that our foreign aid is just handed out wherever we think it will be helpful to the receiving country?
Which brings me back to a previously mentioned perspective. I believe it is logically rational for us to expect something for our foreign aid money. I think demanding a quid pro quo is only natural and in our best interest. Why else be selective when handing it, (foreign aid), out?
My point? It is what the demanded quid pro quo is that makes a difference to me.
Do you really think that demanding something in exchange for our foreign aid money "says it all"? Or, would you be more accurately understood as saying that it is what the demanded "pro" is that says it all?
GAGA, are you letting Trump off the hook?
Our entire foreign policy is based on some form of compensation for the 'aid' that we render.
What is the nature of that exchange, does it advance our national security regarding the recipient country?
Or is it a self serving attempt to smear a potential political opponent? This has nothing to do with anything legitimate. It is more than a coincidence, why are we all dancing around it?
The sublime, unethical has been Trump's MO throughout his career, are we to be surprised that he can't help bringing his dirty private sector tricks into public service?
That is his style and has always been his style, I could not question that anymore than I could pull my hair out over who is actually in Grant's Tomb.No Cred, I am not letting Pres. Trump "off the hook." It is my opinion that he is guilty of seeking personal benefit in exchange for foreign aid approval.
But, that is just my opinion of the appearance of things as presented to me by the media. I have to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong - it happened once before back in 78'.
You said this:
"Our entire foreign policy is based on some form of compensation for the 'aid' that we render."
In the context of your comment I am unsure what you mean. If you mean it as literally stated, then I completely agree - I believe our foreign aid policies have and should always expect something beneficial to the U.S. in exchange for our money. However, "beneficial" covers a broad range. It could cover things as generic as the 'claimed' Ukraine case of rooting out corruption which would benefit us by making Ukraine a more reliable ally. Or, our foreign aid might assist a country in a manner that would preclude them from seeking assistance from a U.S. adversary. (again like Ukraine - buying our natural gas instead of feeding the Russian treasury by buying their natural gas)
Or, the expected benefit could be as corrupt as that which is being charged to Pres. Trump.
Whichever it is doesn't alter the fact that I think our foreign aid monies are always tied to some type of quid pro quo.
As I have mentioned before, it is the 'what is asked' that either legitimizes or criminalizes the action in my mind. I don't have a problem with the existence of a quid pro quo.
GAWhile the 80 or so pages of this forum has focused almost entirely on the Bribery charge, what has been missed, for the most part, is the elephant in the room. The crime that could bring down our government if left standing.
And that is the Obstruction of Congress that Trump has visited on America.
It is true other presidents on both sides of the aisle has resisted legal Congressional subpoenas on occasion. After some negotiation, accommodations were made in some instances. In others, a court found for or against a particular request.
Trump is a totally different case. He has done a virtual total blockade of Congressional subpoenas - a total blockade. The effect is negating portions of Article 1 of the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to oversee the Executive (part of the checks and balances) and to issue legal subpoenas which are almost always held up by the courts. Trump is wiping out part of the Constitution.
If allowed to stand (by not convicting him), then the Republicans will have normalized this behavior. They might was well as tear up the Constitution and throw it in the trash as they return the not guilty verdict.you are absolutely wrong on this. If Congress in its search for truth was completely unbiased, then I would agree with you. In this case, you have a completely biased Congress, who is out to get Trump and holding hearings in such a way, I would not cooperated one iota to legitimize it.
I would go one step further. It is Trump who is preventing this Congress, and our government from going totally out of control.
His obstruction is necessary to stop this insanity.
He is saving democracy. If this Congress under Democrat control, succeeds is removing Trump, then they can remove any future Presidents that they disagree with.How am I wrong, Jack, point by point?
"I would not cooperated one iota to legitimize it." - In that case, you don't believe in the Constitution, do you. SAD.
Are you claiming the House does not have the Constitutional right to oversee the Executive? Is that your position.
Are you claiming the House has no Constitutional right to issue legal subpoenas that must be followed except in rare circumstances? Is that your position as well, Jack?
You do know that the Republicans used exactly the same methodology in their Benghazi witch hunt and presumably you were jumping for joy over that. Are you a hypocrite?
There was so much less to start an investigation on (which 18 GOP investigations exonerated Clinton) than the slam dunk case of bribery, Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of Congress, and, as far as I am concerned, Treason that is available on Trump. Yet based on the flimsy evidence the GOP had you were in full-throated support of crucifying Clinton.
You comment seems to contradict itself My Esoteric.
You imply that it was okay for "other presidents" to resist Congressional subpoenas pending some further resolution; a court ruling or a compromise agreement, but deny that same implication for Pres. Trump's actions. Is that because of the degree of resistance - other president's resisting some subpoenas vs. Pres. Trump resisting all? Is it the degree of resistance that makes a difference to you?
Doesn't Congress have the same resolution authority for Pres. Trump's actions that they had for those other presidents that resisted their subpoena?
I don't think Pres. Trump is negating any part of the Constitution, I just think he is making Congress work harder to exercise their oversight than they have had to in the past.
GANo, I don't "imply" that it was OK. I said it has happened on occasion and all were resolved one way or another (normally in favor of Congress). Trump has stonewalled, entirely.
And yes, it is the degree of resistance.
It is like trying to compare a jay walker and a murderer; the two are not equivalent which your comment seems to suggest that they are. For example, presidents have lied a few times (jay walking) while Trump lies almost all the time (murder). The Republican argument that everybody lies fails under that analysis.
"I just think he is making Congress work harder to exercise their oversight than they have had to in the past." is an interesting comment. I didn't know the Constitution had in mind that a president should make it hard for Congress to carry out its lawful duties. In my simple mind, unless there is a compelling reason, the president is duty bound by his oath of office to follow the law and provide what Congress asks for. Do you not agree?
GA, I don't quite understand why you don't see this distinction:
- Joe Biden tells the Ukrainians that we will give you a "quid" (a 1 billion dollar loan guarantee) "pro" (for) the "quo" (firing a corrupt prosecutor that was getting in the way of our national security interests, not to mention the rest of the world's) That is legal.
- Trump tells the Ukrainians that he (Trump) will give you a "quo" (a meeting and $400 million in aid) "pro" (for) the "quo" (going on TV to tell the world that Ukraine will open up an investigation on Trump's political rival, Joe Biden; something that is NOT in the national security interest). THAT is illegal. That is bribery.
Now let me add that at no time[/b] did Trump ever bring up corruption in the general sense on either communication with Zelenskyy [u]even though that was part of the talking points he was given for both calls. Tell me why he ignored that entirely in call 1 and only referred to it in call 2 in terms of the debunked Ukrainian election interference and the non-existent Biden connections. Why are the Biden's the only corruption Trump worries about?Scott, you are beginning to sound like my wife. Even when I agree with you, you still want to argue.
What part of my comment are you disagreeing with? I didn't defend Pres. Trump's 'ask', I was simply defending the concept of asking.
To be more clear, I do believe VP/ Biden's actions were a clear quid pro quo. I also believe Pres. Trump's actions were also a quid pro quo. I have also clearly stated I think a quid pro quo should be a part of all of our foreign aid monies. Why give away billions if we don't benefit from it?
The difference is the "ask." I believe VP Biden's "ask" was for a benefit to our national interests. I believe Pres. Trump's "ask was for personal benefit. I think the former is fine and should be expected. I think the latter is corrupt and should be condemned.
Now, do you still have a disagreement with my points?
GAGA, the reason I keep trying to prove a point is, at least the comment I was responding to, sounded like you were equivocating, that you weren't sure Trump did an illegal, impeachable thing.
Your comment here, and elsewhere as well, is much more declarative as to Trump'a guilt.
Your emphasis here was the "ask" and its purpose. That was missing (or at least I didn't perceive it) in the comment I was responding to.Don't get too carried away Scott. I did say I believe Pres. Trump was asking for something for personal benefit, but I did not venture into the arena of saying he did an "illegal, impeachable thing." And even now I am not saying he didn't abuse the power of his office.
Abusing the power of his office for personal gain is certainly wrong, (if he did it), but I don't know that it is illegal. I also don't know that it is automatically a justification for removal from office.
But I do think I know that this is all about politics - almost to the point that whether the charges are correct or not is a secondary consideration to most of the Congressional Democrats.
GA"I did say I believe Pres. Trump was asking for something for personal benefit, but I did not venture into the arena of saying he did an "illegal, impeachable thing." And even now I am not saying he didn't abuse the power of his offfice"
You have to be kidding, GA.
I said weeks ago, that if there were no link between his asking the Ukrainian government for dirt on Biden and withhold Congressionally appointed funds, I would dismiss this incident as just another example of Trump and his poor judgement.
But you and others have acknowledged the link and now you say that maybe it was not so bad. I consider it an abuse of his power and authority and a breach of the principle of separation of powers between the branches of Government and on that basis, he should be impeached.
If Bill Clinton can be impeached because the morally priggish GOP dominated house saw fit to be concerned with lying to Congress over who he slept with, then this Trump affair has to definitely qualify as far more serious, as it crosses lines into the Constitution and its intent, itself.
It is just unfortunate that the GOP controlled Senate can not extricate itself from Trump's behind long enough to see the daylight.
Can you imagine Nixon being allowed to remain in office after Watergate?
Trump has abused his power and authority and should be punished for doing so.
So, I presume that you think that Trump should be allowed to get away with all this?And Clinton didn't even lie to Congress like Trump's cronies have, he lied to a grand jury about a personal matter - yet the GOP felt so totally incensed by it, they impeached him. Go Figure.
I guess we see the world differently GA. I see the Constitution under grave attack by his actions, thereby justifying the Democrat's investigation into Trump's alleged crimes and you have very serious doubts that is the case. To me, it is plain as day when there are no clouds. It would seem that with you, there is still a lot fog.
Of course this is all about politics, that is what the founders intended when they put that check into the Constitution. One of their greatest fears was the the people would be fooled by someone like Trump and elect a demagogue that has only his own interests at heart. So when that happens, and it clearly has, they provided a way of removing him.
What Trump has done wrong, as Schiff and others have said, make what Nixon did look penny-ante. And if Nixon's actions were impeachable, then what Trump has done clearly must be, as I see it.
What many here seem to be overlooking is that there is absolutely nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--about Trump requesting an investigation into corruption. That is known as "seeing that the laws are enforced" (as mandated by the Constitution as a duty of the president). He would actually be remiss if he had failed to do so.
Another thing some here seem to be overlooking is that there is nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--were there a "quid-pro-quo." All foreign aid is a quid-pro-quo. Offering foreign aid on the condition that suspected corruption be investigated, especially corruption as related to the disbursement of foreign aid funds (which would be taxpayer funds) would be appropriate in such circumstances. Not only would this not be illegal, it would be the duty of the president (among others) to see to it that funds are not being misused, siphoned off, kicked back, or otherwise stolen by private individuals.
And, another thing some here are overlooking is that any political advantage that might be gained by investigating the criminal conduct of a political opponent would be...um, you know...predicated upon the commission of a crime. People running for public office should rather expect to find their prospects diminished if they go around committing crimes. Hence, the Bidens, by their conduct, are wholly responsible for any subsequent damage to Joe's political aspirations.
Investigating crimes is not election interference. On the other hand, seeking to conceal criminal activity--by thwarting an investigation, for example--on the part of a person running for public office actually WOULD be election interference.Once again "What many here seem to be overlooking is that there is absolutely nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--about Trump requesting an investigation into corruption. " - as true as it is misleading since the thought isn't completed - on purpose! The correct statement is:
"What many here seem to be overlooking is that there is absolutely nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--about Trump requesting an investigation into corruption - UNLESS that investigation into corruption was to personally help Trump with his election. - THAT IS illegal.
"All foreign aid is a quid-pro-quo. " - IS false on its face
"Another thing some here seem to be overlooking is that there is nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--were there a "quid-pro-quo." - AGAIN, incomplete. CORRECT IS:
"Another thing some here seem to be overlooking is that there is nothing inappropriate--let alone illegal--were there a "quid-pro-quo." UNLESS the qpq is to personally benefit Trump in his 2020 election. THAT is illegal"
IT IS ALSO illegal for a President to withhold money appropriated by Congress for a particular purpose WITHOUT getting permission from Congress - which he did not do. Bottom line, Trump broke the law when he put the Ukraine aid on hold - period.
As to Biden and his son, they have not done anything wrong and they have not been accused of doing anything wrong by competent authority. In order to support your supplication to Trump you must believe, without any proof, that the Bidens did anything wrong. You just viciously imply it.
What Trump was trying to do was legitimize his false accusations against his political opponent in the 2020 election by having a foreign leader suggest they did something wrong by opening a fake investigation into them. That has great propaganda value for Trump in trying to extend his term.Today, you had Sondland stating that Trump did not care about corruption or Ukraine, only in getting a public announcement of an investigation into Biden. Basically, he was fishing for his next e-mails scandal, and using the prospect of a White House meeting to get that announcement.
Later in the day, Cooper testifies that the Ukranians asked about the $400 million in military aid on the same day as the infamous July 25 phone call, completely undermining a GOP talking point that they were unaware of the hold. Then Trump, on the call, mentions he needs a favor right after Zelensky asks about it. That favor being for Zelensky to look into the Bidens. Talk about a quid pro quo.
Cooper also testified that by May, Ukraine had met benchmarks showing that it had made “institutional reforms” to combat corruption. Republicans have raised the defense that Trump withheld the aid because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine and was waiting for proof that Zelensky, who was elected president April 21 and took office on May 20, was doing enough to fight it.
But Cooper’s testimony undercut that assertion as well.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-off … 27454.html
And a quid pro quo that is in the best interest of the United States is somewhat acceptable. But it has been made plainly clear by most of these witnesses, that they understood this case to be of benefit to Trump's re-election. That is not in the best interest of the United States, just his own personal interest.
When the anti-corruption specialist for Ukraine testifies that he is completely unaware of any corruption committed by Biden in relation to Ukraine, some would call that debunking a conspiracy theory.
And I'm glad we all agree that ordering witnesses not to testify in an official investigation, or withholding documents to those investigators (such as is being done by Trump who is running for office) constitutes concealing his crimes.
Also, per a treaty agreement between the US and Ukraine, Ukraine is obligated to cooperate with the US in the investigation of corruption.
Are you suggesting the US treaty with Ukraine is about corruption? That this unknown treaty has an article that requires Ukraine to investigate Americans for corruption?
An indictment drawn up by Ukraine's Office of the Prosecutor General against Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky claims that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million for their 'services' - according to Ukrainian MP Alexander Dubinsky of the ruling Servant of the People Party.
""Zlochevsky was charged with this new accusation by the Office of the Prosecutor General but the press ignored it," said the MP. "It was issued on November 14."
"The son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering," he then said, adding "Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … million-mp
Um.... Now THAT'S a bribe!
Seeking to investigate corruption and enforce the law is not a bribe.Please use a believable source, not some far-Right conspiracy theory site.
The source is merely reporting facts. Do you dispute the facts?
Facts mean nothing without context. Your far-Right conspiracy theory site presents no context.
If you wish, you could read the story on Reuters, to which the article links. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1XU2N7
I always feel that some here are not actually following this story.Now Reuters is an organization I can trust and as expected, it does not support your claims about either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. In fact, it says extremely little about either.
What is does say is they are investigating the owner of Burisma, Zlochevsky and of Burisma. There are 13 cases related to Zlochevsky and, according to another article, one case against Burisma itself. They are investigating zero cases against Joe Biden and zero cases against Hunter Biden.
Consequently, your smear campaign against both falls apart.
Here's a bit more from Interfax.com. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-c … 25831.html
The Kerry family is also neck-deep in this looting operation.You do know, don't you, that your Interfax Ukraine is owned by the Russians? That Franklin Templeton is a major donor to Republicans, much more so than to Democrats. So much for them being in bed with the Dems, lol.
Again, little is mentioned of either of the Bidens but the main source of information, Derkach is clearly biased since he totally misrepresented what Joe Biden did with the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee.
Again, you swung and missed in smearing the Bidens.Blueheron: How do you explain Guilianni running a parallel channel to the real official channel of the ambassadors?
Why was it necessary to remove Yovonavitch from her job as ambassador to the Ukraine as everyone she worked with testified she was doing a great job?
Why does Trump say he doesn't know who Sonland is when he donated a million dollars to Trump and Trump hired him to replace Yovonavitch as ambassador to Ukraine?
How do you explain that one of the conditions for Zelensky to meet with Trump is to have Zelensky appear on CNN on Fareed Zakaria's show and pronounce to the world that the Biden's are corrupt.?
How do you explain that the money to the Ukraine was supposed to be released in February to the Ukraine, but wasn't released until September right after the transcript from the whistle blower was released?
How do you explain that Trump ordered key witness Bolton, Pence, Guilianni, Pompeo, et al have been subpoenaed, but they have been ordered by Trump to not honor their subpoenas?
If they have nothing to hide and are not guilty, why doesn't Trump allow them to be put under oath in the hearings? All of the hearsay and opinions would be put to rest as they all report to Trump and their testimony would be directly from their boss.
Even more telling is that you have the most partisan Senate in the history of the United States under McConnell. They could call for their own investigation of Burisma is there was any factual basis to it. That they don't is extremely telling that the 'facts' that Blueheron claims are far from reality.
It is obvious Blue doesn't care about truth, only in keeping a crook in office.
The claim that Trump "did not care" about "corruption or Ukraine" (your words--and a misquote)--derives from the following scenario:
David Holmes, a political counselor based in Kyiv, claims he overhead a telephone conversation between Sondland and Trump, while sitting at a restaurant in Kyiv with Sondland and two other staffers. Holmes said he could overhear what Trump was saying because Trump was speaking so loudly.
Following the call, Holmes said he pressed Sondland about Trump’s feelings toward Ukraine.
“Ambassador Sondland agreed the president did not give a shit about Ukraine. I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated, the President only cares about, quote, unquote, big stuff. I noted that there was, quote, unquote, big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia,” Holmes testified. “And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant, quote, unquote, big stuff that benefits the president, like the quote, unquote, Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.”
So basically your claim about Trump's motives rests on an unverifiable telephone conversation that Holmes claims to have overheard--and, indeed, claims to have overheard both ends of the conversation with rather extraordinary clarity--and the subsequent (unverifiable) speculation and gossip between Holmes and Sondland while sitting in some restaurant table in Kyiv.
Offering claims of overheard telephone conversations, speculation, and gossip as evidence is a bit of a stretch.
Any benefit accruing to Trump by the exposure/investigation of criminal activity derives, not from investigation/exposure, but from criminal activity on the part of political opponents.
I think it is well understood that the enforcement of laws against corruption operate in the best interests of the United States. This is because, when the US provides foreign aid, it is not in the interests of the US to have the funds "misappropriated" (stolen) by private individuals. Duh. I assume that if you gave money to a charity, you would be displeased to learn that the money was not used for its intended purpose because Hunter Biden stole it.
And, yes, many of us were astonished to learn that Vindman was "completely unaware of any corruption committed by Biden in relation to Ukraine."
Nunes asked Vindman, "Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?"
Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy, replied, "I'm not aware of this fact."
Kind of odd that someone who works closely with intelligence would not be aware of something that is common knowledge to the general public. I guess Vindman doesn't know about the Morgan Stanley bank records published in the New York Times earlier this year, showing payments of 3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, a corporation controlled by Hunter Biden partner (and fellow former Burisma board member) Devon Archer.
Perhaps Vindman finds it inconvenient to know anything about anything.Please get your FACTS STRAIGHT before screwing them up.
1. What Holmes overheard, which Sondland did not contradict (he just had another strange lapse of memory), is that Trump asked him about the investigations and that Sondland replied something to the effect "Zelenskyy will do anything you want".
2. What even your own quote demonstrates, and your commentary gets wrong, is it was Sondland saying, based on his many conversations with Trump, who said Trump doesn't give a shit about Ukraine. It was not, as you claim, something he overheard.
3. You insinuation that Holmes did not hear what he heard means you are calling him a liar, something Sondland did not do.
Why do you persist in linking what a previous president of Ukraine did to Biden when that has been totally debunked? (And will be again in today's testimony)
All this proves is your lack of interest in the truth, your lack of interest in corruption in the White House, your lack of interest in the good name of America, and your all consuming interest in keeping a crook in power.I notice you glossed over the part where Ukraine met the benchmarks of fighting corruption that allowed the aid to be released. Seems more than just a little corrupt that we ask them to fight it, they meet our benchmarks, then we still hold the aid back.
As to why you brought up Vindman, not sure. Kent is the anti-corruption specialist for Ukraine. Here is his testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKQTvYshEl0It IS truly astounding is it not?
What we have, is an entire cabal or corruption being exposed, as Biden is but a small piece of the Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc. which includes more than half of Congress who are all making themselves multi-millionaires though foreign "investments" into their kid's corporations, or their Charities, or campaign donations, you name it.
And these criminals are working to twist the exposure of their crimes and activities into a reason to impeach the President, who is exposing these cockroaches for what they are.
What is even more interesting however, is the mental gymnastics we see from people in these threads, to ignore the obviousness of the terminal level of corruption in Congress, and the likes of Clinton and Biden, and those who try and cover up their crimes (ie Comey)…
Some I understand, they may have hardcore communist beliefs, or have truly foreign values and ideals, but others... who are far closer to the 'normal American mindset' its just amazing to watch them even give this a moment of earnest consideration. This garbage is not worth the effort.
The criminals are running the prison, the insane have taken over the asylum.... Biden is innocent of any wrongdoing, and Trump should be impeached for even suggesting to someone he'd like to know the truth of it.Ken, again you are projecting. The Cabal you refer to is Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, Volker, and Giuliani.
For those who are seriously trying to pretend Trump cares about corruption in the Ukraine, and that this bribery had nothing to do with the Biden's specifically, we can look to Trump's own words as to what he really cares about: https://www.youtube/watch?v=UhvMtb3BPus … C4CV9tIEOI
President Trump on Investigating Bidensafter yesterday's testimony, this impeachment inquiry is over. let's move on as the left famously proposed and even formed a activist group moveon.org
The transcript is released, the players have said what they wanted to say...
there was no high crime and misdemeanor...
Adam Schiff failed again in his 2nd attempt to get Teump out of office.
end of a sad chapter in our Congress's history...
Nancy, please pass some bills...Again, you are repeating conservative talking points, not the truth.
Sondland: "If you are asking if there was a quid pro quo, the answer is YES"
Sondland: " Everyone was in the loop".
To the degree that it is proven that Trump broke the law and should be impeached for it, yes the inquiry could end today.
BUT, today, Hill is going to testify that the Trump and Republican fictional narrative about the Bidens and Ukrainian involvement in 2016 is pure bunk and only there to try to help Trump win the 2020 election.
I see you have yet to read this which lists the important bills the Democrats have passed at the same time they have been pursuing saving America from Trump. I have to update it with yesterday's votes.
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/What- … h-Congress
So PLEASE stop lying about that Jack.Mere wishful thinking on your part, Jack.
Exactly...move on to the Senate. I think this will ensure a Trump loss in 2020...we will see on that though.
Why no comment on the video where Trump make's it clear what he really wanted, and wants? Oh, that doesn't fit your narrative of Trump being out to fix Ukranian obstruction. What it does do, is further cement the evidence that Trump bribed a foreign President with his personal political future at the forefront of his mind."Why no comment on the video where Trump makes it clear what he really wanted, and wants?"
My thought process leaves me believing after just reading the transcript that Trump asked for the Biden's as well a croudStrike and 2016 election interference be investigated. It's as clear as day... He made the request... If Congress feels they have a case that this request is a crime or an impeachable offense, they need to move on to impeachment allegations and pass it on to the Senate.
After two weeks we have watched a one-sided smear campaign. That has added no more to the actual phone call transcript. We learned lots of witnesses had very strong opinions of the request, and felt it "odd", "not proper", etc. But could really offer no incite to motive as whyTrump made the request. We need an actual impeachment hearing. Where Trump will be able to either provide his motive or just move along to the inevitable vote. The Dem's have overplayed their hand, time to put up or shut up.
Today witnesses have offered little but their own opinions, and their feelings about the president and his foreign policy. The sad part is, Trump has been the first president to help the people of Ukraine with aid and weapons to defend themselves. That is a fact.
Ms.Hill has the concern Russia is already interfering in the 2020 election??? It would be seen the Russian government would hope to rid themselves of Trump? Due to his actions in weaponizing and supporting Ukraine? Plus Trump's administration sanctions remain in place and are very debilitating to Russia. These are facts. Not many want to consider these facts, but none the less they are facts.
It certainly would seem Congress could have just Censured Trump, instead of having an impeachment inquiry that will end in Senate shelving their ploy.
All this procedure has done is to make our Congress look foolish, and waste money. Today it is apparent there is nothing that will stand as an impeachment crime. To me, it sums up to a bunch of diplomats that don't like Trump's. Today we have two witnesses which seem to have very anti-Trump opinions. And pretty much should be respectful that it's not them that makes foreign policy, and hat actually they should be pleased for Trump's helpful policies in regards to Ukraine.
I have watched it all week, but these two... I am not going to watch it. More of the same, and it sickens me that no evidence and I can see none to come... As you said time to move this into the Senate...
And by the way, the Biden's are not above the law. If there is a suspicion they committed crimes time to investigate them. After all, there are actual documents to prove Hunter received lots of cash from China, Ukraine, and Romania. I guess if we have come to condemn and then searching out the evidence. The Biden's will be perfect candidates for this form of law.
Bottom line --- Some of us that like to make decisions on facts using common sense. We want to see Trump's intent. None of the witnesses has touched on his intent, only a collective handful of hand-picked witnesses giving personal opinions."My thought process leaves me believing after just reading the transcript that Trump asked for the Biden's as well a croudStrike and 2016 election interference be investigated. " - YES it is clear as day.
It is clear as day that since the only fantastical corruption Trump is interested in is something that only benefits Trump and not the Ukrainians. That makes it illegal as well as hypocritical.
If this were Obama in exactly the same situation, I would have no doubt you would be digging his grave today.Sharlee, I understood Ms. Hill to be saying something else; the Russians' purpose was/is to sow division. Both in our politics and our nation. If I recall correctly she noted that the Russians would have been equally successful in their 2016 efforts even if Clinton had won because the taint of their efforts would have also tainted the legitimacy of her election victory.
I agree with her perspective.
I agree with her that the Russians will make equal or greater efforts to disrupt our 2020 elections. I don't think they really care which candidate wins - they just want to promulgate dissension and division.
I think that is a "fact" that should be worth your consideration.
GA
I think it will also lead to a few Republican Senate losses that wouldn't have otherwise have happened.
It seems likely. At this point, those who are truly not part of the Trump kool-aid brigade are out of patience with Trump and those protecting him. I live in a very conservative state, and there is a very noticeable shift in the number of Trump apologists falling by the wayside. If that is happening here, Republicans are in trouble in states that often go either way.
The defense of Trump by some here is just surreal. The real swing voters understand this. The problem the Dems have is with the Senate trial. The R's can make this about Biden and spin it all they want.Dr. Hill nicely summed up what Trump and is mafia gang is doing with foreign policy - on the one hand, Hill and Taylor and Yavanovich are (or were) trying to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. And on the other hand, Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, Mulvaney, etc are on a "domestic political errand,"
This is a very simple case, guys.
Trump requested an investigation of corruption in Ukraine.
The transcript of the telephone call indicates no "quid-pro-quo." There is nothing wrong or illegal about a quid-pro-quo, had it occurred, and the so-called "evidence" to the contrary that has been presented consists of gossip and hearsay among a bunch of bureaucrats.
Did some political advantage accrue to Trump? Was this Trump's intention in seeking an investigation into corruption? There's nothing illegal or even inappropriate about about reaping political advantage as a result of your opposition's crimes.
The crux of this rather strange position is that you have a very strong objection to the investigation (and presumably the prosecution) of corruption.
So strong is your objection that you believe that anyone who has the temerity to do so should be prosecuted.
And the defense of what amounts to actual advocacy for corruption--and the attempt to punish the enforcement of the law--is, "If the people find out I'm a crook, they might not vote for me."You put your finger on it. Not sure why Trump asking for an investigation into the Biden's should cause such a stir. It is clear to most we have had crooks in office forever! In the past three years, our government has turned its back on some really big crimes. LOL One would think it might be time to realize Trump very well may have asked for this investigation be done to get dirt on Biden. But come on-- he learned this ploy fro the best. Hillary... She was a gob hopper when it comes to digging up dirt, and she was caught and not prosecuted. We have so much evidence in the way of documents, as well as first-hand evidence.
I guess Trump may have thought time to get to the bottom of all the fun stuff that occurred in 2016, and the Biden's.
This morning the witness "Holmes claimed Sondland mentioned Trump cares about the "big stuff'. And went on to say he asked what big stuff was, and Soundland was said to say the investigation into the Bidens.
I wonder if Holmes ever really stopped to think --- Trump has been the only president to actually do the big stuff in regards to aid and weapons to Ukraine?
Trump does his job, there is no questioning that, it's just a fact. And actually, if the Biden's played the game pay for play, they need investigation. And I consider it a must at this point.Since that was Holmes job, to think about stuff like that, I guess investigating the Biden's for Trump's own personal political reasons was less important than letting the Russian finish their conquest of Ukraine.
There is every question that Trump is doing his job; that is why is job approval is in the tank. The ONLY people who think he has actually done something good for this country are is supplicants.
While I will grant he has done one or two things beneficial to America, but the net is a massive negative.
He has turned America into a third-world country in which I am no longer proud to live in - even though I spent my adult life in service to this nation. We will only begin to recover our self-respect when this traitor is gone.
Here are experts in Ukraine:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council staffer, told the committee on Tuesday that the Ukraine story is “a Russian narrative that President Putin has promoted.”
And Kurt Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine, dismissed the Ukraine interference narrative — as well as allegations that former Vice President Biden acted improperly in pressuring Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor — as “conspiracy theories.”
“The allegations against the [former] vice president are self-serving and not credible,” Volker said Tuesday. “Raising 2016 elections, or Vice President Biden, or these things I consider to be conspiracy theories circulated by the Ukrainians … they’re not things we should be pursuing.”
Fiona Hill:
“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” said Fiona Hill, who until July was the deputy assistant to the president and senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council.
“Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined,” Hill said. “President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a super-PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each other, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.”
These are three extremely credible witnesses who are trying to tell you that you're being fed misinformation pertaining to Ukraine. Yet, you're so far down the rabbit hole already, you cannot see the light.Let me spell it out to you one more time.
QUID - Investigate my political opponents, the Bidens
Pro - in return I will let you
QUO - Visit the White House and give you your aid.
Is that simple enough for you???
There was no other corruption that Trump was interested in. If there were, he would have brought it up sometime between March and now. Since Trump did not do that, the ONLY conclusion you can draw is Trump wanted political advantage from Zelenskyy saying he would investigate the Bidens. Hell, Trump didn't even care whether the investigations were even done, he just wanted the announcement.
You say "Trump requested an investigation of corruption in Ukraine." and I say "No He Didn't".
SHOW me one time when he told Zelenskyy that. SHOW me one time that Sondland, Taylor, Yavanovitch, Hill, etc ever said that at Trump's behest.
SHOW me where in the 1st Call where Trump brought up corruption - you can't!
SHOW me where in the 2nd Call where Trump brought up corruption beyond his request to investigate his political opponent and the equally debunked 2016 election stupidity.
If you can't, please stop your lying.Hi Blueheron, I find that I have to agree and disagree with your thoughts.
In agreement, I too believe there is nothing illegal or unethical in expecting a quid pro quo in exchange for our foreign aid. I believe it is only natural--and in our best national interest--to do so, but my disagreement is that my common sense tells me that the telephone memorandum clearly indicates Pres. Trump was asking for a quid pro quo.
Further testimony from most of the folks involved reinforces my common-sense determination that something was asked of Ukraine in exchange for our foreign aid money.
I think you may disagree with what was demanded of Ukraine's Pres. Zelenski, but do you disagree that something was asked of him?
In relation to your characterization of the witnesses' testimony as "gossip and hearsay" does their testimony lead you to believe there was no quid pro quo asked of Ukraine? Or is it that you believe their testimony doesn't convict Pres. Trump of the charges the Democrats are making?
Isn't your point of dissension really about what was asked rather than whether or not someting was asked?
GA
Two days after the whistleblower accused him of a quid pro quo. So Trump makes a denial just after being caught and reported to those who have the power to charge him with articles of impeachment. Let me go commit a crime, then make a public denial after I get caught and see how that impacts the lengthy prison sentence I'm sure to get.
If this is the defense argument you're clinging to, you might as well start looking for another 2020 candidate.The Dems polled that quid pro quo wasn't a popular enough accusation so they're going for bribery instead. So your argument is invalid.
Trump supporters don't believe in polls, so your argument to my argument is invalid.
I'm not a Trump supporter. So my argument is valid. Also liberals are the ones with super delegates, which is why looser Hillary became their front runner instead of Socialist Bernie who would have beat Donny.
Once again you claim you're not a Trump supporter, but that's all you've done so far.
Actions speak so much louder than words. 'O's actions tell the world he is a Trump supplicant.
Trump's actions totally belie his "no quid pro quo" lies by leading people to help him commit bribery.Dr. Fiona Hill gave it to Republicans today big time.
She said "This [meaning the fictional Ukrainian election interference) is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," Hill told lawmakers in her opening statement, referring to the allegations that Ukraine meddled in 2016 to harm Trump. "I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a US adversary, and that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked us in 2016."
The implication, of course, is that Trump and the Republicans are joining with the Russians in pushing this anti-Ukraine, anti-US false narrative. (That was a dumb thing to say, we already know Trump and the Russians are linked at the hip.)
It's the same thing, dude. Bribery and extortion is exactly what your hero tried to commit with the Ukraine President. However you want to spin it, it is wrong.
Let's keep this simple. We all know that Trump prides himself on being a deal maker. He even wrote a book called The Art of The Deal. Let's look at this from his perspective. He wanted to make a deal with Ukraine. "You find dirt on the Biden's or I won't give you the money."
It's that simple. However, he didn't take into account that there were several professional ambassadors that were assigned to the Ukraine in various capacities and they all kept copious notes, except Sonland. One of them was Maria Yovonavitch who stood in the way of Trump cutting the deal. So he removed her and replaced her with Gordon Sonland who was not a professional ambassador, but he donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign. So I guess that qualified him.
In addition, he sent Guilianni and his two henchmen there to run a scheme to motivate the President of the Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's, even with a pronouncement on CNN that the Biden's are corrupt in the Burisma deal.
The whistle blower appears on the stage with the phone transcript and all bets are off. The money is released. All the witness come to testify including all the ambassadors and they all find Trump guilty of the deal evidenced by their contemporaneous notes, except Sonland. He didn't keep any notes, but he has records that for some reason cannot be released.
The deal is called bribery and it was done for the purpose of giving Trump the edge against Joe Biden. If he is not guilty, why doesn't he have his key cabinet members and Gurilianni and his henchmen come forward and vouch for him? The have all been subpoenaed but refuse to appear because under oath, they would incriminate themselves and Trump.
In my view, Trump is the amateur in this game and the witnesses are the professionals. Trump tried to pull one of his con deals and he got caught. Where we go from here, has to do with public opinion. The GOP and Fox News want to discredit the inquiry, while the dems are trying to show the public what a con man Trump is.Apparently Dr. Fiona Hill tore the Republican questioners up SO MUCH that they stop asking questions. She made them look like the fools that they are.
To any thinking person, Trump is guilty of bribery based on 1st hand as well as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. But that is not the most important Article, in my opinion.
I think the first article should be Obstruction of Congress; to me that is the most serious of all possible Articles. Why, because if a president can stonewall Congress like Trump has then we can throw the Constitution in the trash can since it no longer has any meaning. If Trump gets away with Obstructing Congress in the way he has, then EVERY future president can do the same thing with impunity. That means the Republicans can never again hold a Benghazi-type inquisition - they would hate that.
The second most serious Article I think should be Obstruction of Justice based on the Mueller report and any new crimes related to Obstructing Congress. Again, if a president can get away with such egregious attempts to interfere with federal investigations then again, what use is a Constitution if it has no teeth?
Then we get to Abuse of Power for among many other things, his orchestration of the smear campaign against the "bad news" Ambassador Yananovitch. He didn't even have the guts to simply recall her.
Finally, we get to Bribery. To us thinking people, it is a slam dunk. But in this political world where Republicans care more about their jobs than our country, it is the least solid Article they can bring.
It is interesting how ignorant you are 'O'. Quid Pro Quo IS Bribery when done for illegal purposes such as what Trump did. LOL
Anyone with any interest in the types of things Trump is doing, which will have long-term effects, should read this: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1086321
Trump's EPA is checking off an anti-environment wish list. Here's who will suffer.
"Every day that the EPA quietly ticks off another item, the social and financial consequences are being shifted from polluters to at-risk communities."Trump sure likes setting the stage for people to die. It started with immigrants, moved on to Kurds, and now people's children from lead poisoning.
So the articles of impeachment will now be crafted. I sincerely hope they include the obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report. It will add more weight to all the crimes Trump committed and I would like to see witnesses called like Don McGhan and some of Mueller's investigators to get further into those crimes.
Well, it's kind of odd that Fiona Hill would make the statement that, "There was no Ukranian election interference; that's a "discredited conspiracy theory."
December 12th, 2018: Ukrainian court rules that the efforts by Ukrainian parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU chief Artem Sytnyk to publicize the Manafort black ledger documents in 2016 were an improper foreign intervention in the American presidential election.
So...um... we have an actual court ruling in Ukraine that indeed there was interference and, more-importantly, it was a violation of Ukranian law, not a mere "lobbying" incident complying with the boundaries of the law in that nation.
John Solomon gives the timeline here: https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukra … ca-to-see/
So, anyway, Fiona Hill's "discredited conspiracy theory" has been proved up in a court of law.
In addition, it has recently come to light that Adam Schiff is (per the headline) "Connected to Both Companies Named in $7.4 Billion Burisma-US-Ukraine Corruption Case." https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/1 … tion-case/
While I suppose it would be unbecoming of me to speculate, it kind of appears to me--based on now-extensive documentation--that quite a few people in high places have been caught flat-footed in some rather rather staggering criminal corruption, to the tune of the theft of millions of dollars (among other crimes). Plus I would also speculate that there are many, MANY more people in high places involved in this than has so far been revealed--and that every one of them knows that they left a paper trail a mile wide.
Their defense: "Anyone investigating corruption is just a bad person. It is wrong and evil to investigate corruption. Informing the public about our crimes will cause people not to vote for us and thus is 'election interference.' And as for all those documents proving corruption.... Well, they are all lies. "And from the alternate reality of the situation...
As Fox News viewers are well aware, the so-called black ledger mentioned repeatedly by Castor refers to a book of handwritten accounting records discovered among the papers of the deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party after he fled to Russia following a popular uprising in 2014.
Those records, which were posted online by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau in August 2016, appeared to document secret payments, including $12.7 million to Yanukovych’s former political adviser, Manafort. One day after the records were made public, Sergii Leshchenko, a Ukrainian investigative journalist who was elected to parliament after the uprising, displayed pages from the ledger at a news conference in Kyiv, and Manafort resigned from Trump’s campaign.
Leshchenko, an anti-corruption activist who continued to work as a journalist while serving in parliament, has never been, as Castor suggested, a pillar of Ukraine’s establishment, so the idea that his publication of pages from the ledger was akin to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election is absurd.
Leshchenko himself explained in a September Washington Post opinion piece that his motivation for exposing Manafort’s corruption was not, as Republicans now claim, part of a Ukrainian government plot to defeat Trump.
“I will always be angry at Manafort,” Leshchenko wrote. “His work contributed greatly to Yanukovych’s election victory in 2010; Yanukovych then used his position as president to enrich himself and his inner circle. I have no doubt that Yanukovych paid Manafort for his services out of the funds he robbed from Ukrainian taxpayers.”
“My desire to expose Manafort’s doings was motivated by the desire for justice,” he continued. “Neither Hillary Clinton, nor Joe Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black ledger. I wanted to obtain accountability for the lobbyist whose client immersed Ukraine in a blood bath during the Revolution of Dignity and the subsequent war in eastern Ukraine, when Yanukovych called on Russia to send troops.”
Despite claims by Manafort to the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that the ledger was a forgery, bank records described in an FBI search warrant, and reviewed by the Associated Press, confirmed that at least $1.2 million in payments listed in the records next to Manafort’s name were actually deposited in one of his firm’s bank accounts in Virginia. (A record of one of those deposits was subsequently made public by Leshchenko.)
On Friday, Leshchenko, who has been appalled by the Republican effort to rehabilitate Manafort by attacking him, drew attention on Twitter to a section of Yovanovitch’s testimony where she told Castor: “I think from a Ukrainian perspective — I realize we are looking at this from an American perspective — from a Ukrainian perspective, what Mr. Leshchenko and others who were looking into the black ledger were most concerned about was actually not Mr. Manafort, but former president Yanukovych and his political party and the amount of money that they allegedly stole and where it went.”
The GOP is basing this on Solomon's reporting. But Solomon’s other main source for the claim that the ledger was false turns out to have been Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort’s former Ukrainian business partner, who has been linked to Russian intelligence and was indicted last year and charged with obstruction of justice by special counsel Robert Mueller.
So you're on here parroting information coming from the Russians. You're entering treasonous territory.Your funny, Blue. You and all of your far-right, anti-American, pro-Russian conspiracy sites.
So true, like a guy who pays off women for sexual encounters, is sued for running a fake university, allows Saudi Arabia to get off Scott free from butchering a reporter for the Washington Post, would be concerned about corruption in the Ukraine.
What we have, is a political group who knows all the facts are against them. So, they create an alternative reality, based on fantasy websites, put out by their lackeys so they can tell their people to get the "real" news there. And, they suck up every word of it like it's sold gold truth, yet tell others, that what they are seeing and hearing first-hand is not true. Lobbyists go so far as to make fake news websites. Americans for Prosperity had about 20 of them going at one time. I wrote for a few of them. This was the only work I was able to get at the time. But, believe every word these sites say and nothing these say, no matter what. But, "the left" is gullible.
Ken Burgess, yes, what we actually have with the impeachment proceedings is a desperate attempt by a criminals in high places to prevent or discredit the investigation of their own massive criminal conduct.
The bottom line on these proceedings is the--absolutely ludicrous--claim that it is wrong or corrupt to investigate corruption. And the REASON they claim it is wrong to investigate corruption is because exposing their crimes might damage their election prospects.
Damnedest thing I've ever heard.
GA Anderson, the transcript of Trump's phone call has been made public and there is nothing in it to support the charge that there was a quid-pro-quo. End of story.
Claims to the contrary consist only of assorted bureaucrats' opinions and hearsay.
Nor would there be anything wrong if there had been a quid-pro-quo. It would be perfectly appropriate to withhold funds if you believed they were being misallocated (stolen)--which, it turns out, was taking place on a massive scale. This would clearly be in the national interest. It is also clearly in the national interest to investigate corruption--which, it turns out, was taking place on a massive scale.
There are probably many, many more hands in the cookie jar than have been thus far revealed--and involving several countries other than Ukraine.
The Democrats have their hair on fire because they are looking down the barrel of public exposure of crimes that will shock the nation.
To be fair, I suspect many Republicans are also involved, DC being pretty much of a cesspit.
Many, many people are very, very desperate to prevent or discredit these ongoing investigations.That was exactly why Trump was elected to clean up DC and the swamp...
I would agree that many people THOUGHT that is what they were electing Trump for - he said it enough after all and you all fell for it. That is how demagogues like him get elected.
His actions speak much louder than his false words. Trump is the epitome of the Swamp and he has made DC much dirtier that it was before him.wrong again. the reason Trump was elected or even possible for him to run is because Obama screwed up so badly, even a novice politician said I could do a better job.
as regard to the Constitution, do you think what congressman Adam Schiff is doing with his biased inquiry is what our Founders had in mind?
or the so called whistleblower who uses hearsay and rumors to accuse a sitting president?
the only person who don't understand our Constitution is partisan Democrats like you who applies different standards to different party members. That is not due process is it?this forum is long past due, and should just end for the sake of sanity.
just like the impeachment inquiry should end due to lack of evidence.
Period.
I am no longer following this forum. Good luck.Jack: Where in the constitution does it say if you are subpoenaed you can refuse to appear? If you were subpoenaed and refused to appear, what do you think what happen to you? Several of Trump cabinet members including Guilianni have been subpoenaed, where are they?
Do you think that those career professional ambassadors who testified are part of the swamp? Trump is the amateur in this game, although he is a professional con man. He didn't even know who Marie Yovonavitch was. He just removed her and brought in Guilianni and his henchmen to do their dirty work. They and Trump got caught.
He cleaned the swamp by removing professional cabinet members that could guide him. But because they didn't agree with him, he replaced them or they got fed up and left on their on accord. And he replaced them with amateurs like himself. Just look at who his current cabinet members are. Look at their resumes.
He pulled our troops out of Syria and now Putin has taken over our airbases there. That's a great policy to have your enemy replace you on the battle field.
Your only argument is that Obama did a poor job. Part of Trump's policies are based on removing any policies that Obama put in place. Why is he doing that? Because he is a revengeful person who wanted to get even with Obama because he insulted Trump at at Foreign Press dinner. (This is my opinion).
As far as different standards go, for three years of Benghazi, Hillary was subject to intense GOP investigations and assumed guilty, until they gave up.
Adam Schiff is a Harvard trained lawyer and he is following the constitution, tell me where has he violated the constitution? I call Trump an amateur, just look at his resume.
You and your cohorts want to subpoena the whistle blower. That is a violation of the constitution.Jack believes Trump is above the law like others in his party. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
Blueheron, a 'transcript' of the phone call has not been released. It was a Memorandum of the content of the call that was released. I do not see this as just a matter of semantics. The two words mean different things.
If we had a "transcript" of the call we could be certain we were reading all of what was said on the call. The Memorandum does not provide us that level of surety. The simple inclusion of the ellipses, (. . . indicating omitted sections), tells us we aren't hearing everything that was said.
The real "End of Story" is that neither you or I have seen a "transcript" of the call and that we have different perceptions of what was said/implied in the phone call.
GAOne thing we do know that for at least one of ellipses, the word Burisma was omitted according to Lt. Col. Vindman.
Don't interupt, Blueheron has gone full Russian-backed conspiracy theorist. It's really entertaining to watch.
Especially now that it has come out that Senators were briefed that Russia has been (and is) carrying out a covert propaganda campaign to shift blame for the 2016 election attack to the Ukrainians. They are doing it by pushing a false narrative of Ukrainian election interference - one that NEVER happened.
Now, it is not surprising Trump bought it, he believes EVERYTHING Putin tells him. But to have the Trump-Republicans do the Russian's work for them is amazing, sad, and so scary.
Bottom line Trump, you Trump supporters, and the Trump-Republicans are Russian operatives in this regard. I hope you Trump people are proud of yourselves.I'm going to go out on a limb here. Anybody who pays attention can see that Trump suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). One of the classic symptoms of NPD is that they are attracted and admire people who they perceive of being authoritarians and having equal or greater power than they do.
Perhaps, that is why Trump is attracted to Putin, Kim, Netanyahu, and the Saudi Prince. It's like he has a need to be subservient to them, even with all of his bluster of being able to destroy them with the greatest military in the world, he still seems to want to have a "bromance" with them. I'm just trying to make sense of why Trump supports and seems attracted to these leaders and literally lets them get away with murder.You are not going out on limb with "I'm going to go out on a limb here. Anybody who pays attention can see that Trump suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)."!
I have written a lot about it, but more importantly so has a host of mental health experts. See - https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … amp;sr=8-1
It is a very scary book which I have summarized in several hubs.
The GOP was salivating (frothing maybe) with anticipation that the DOJ IG report was going to crucify the Republican dominated FBI for targeting Donald Trump (not that he didn't deserve) with a made-up investigation.
GUESS WHAT! The DOJ IG came up with the conclusion all sane people knew it would - the FBI did their job properly and without a political agenda.
Sorry to burst your bubble Trump supplicants.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics … index.html
I want to digress a little bit here, since I think what lies at the root of our differences are fundamental differences in our understandings of the way the world works.
What we broadly refer to as the "Left" is made up of people who view government, especially the US government, especially at the federal level, as being as all-wise, all-beneficent, and the certain source of unlimited money to solve all problems, and which--if only it were given sufficient power--desires only to provide every single individual with all their earthly needs.
Sometimes those we broadly refer to as the "Right" wonder why they think that. Broadly speaking there are a couple of reasons. One of them is that government told them so. They were educated in government schools and informed by government-controlled media. The other major reason is that most of the "Left" is on the government payroll, directly or indirectly--or they aspire to be.
Those on the "Right" hold an opposing world view. I will try to give you the basic outline.
Imagine you had a printing press in your basement and you could print unlimited--infinite--amounts of counterfeit money. Most of us--perhaps due to lack of vision--would indulge in some very nice cars, some fine dining, a designer wardrobe, some nice vacations, a bigger house with a bigger basement (and a bigger printing press), with perhaps and attached airstrip and some private aircraft, probably near the ocean so we could have our own yacht.
But--wait just a minute here! Why are the police not coming by?
Because--duh!--if you were a person who actually DID have vision--government was actually the FIRST thing you bought. (Read G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island.) Some of the other things you bought were all major news and entertainment media, and the educational system. Through your ownership/control of all these, you are able, for almost all practical purposes, to control not only public opinion but also much of the economic life of the nation. You control the money supply, and because this particular money supply (the dollar) is the world reserve currency, you control the money supply--and along with it all the other above-mentioned control mechanisms--for most other nations in the world.
People in general don't understand this. Perhaps your..."educational"... experience did not include a study of the Federal Reserve System or the monetary system. It could be that none of the major media have directed you attention to these matters. If you want my opinion (which you probably don't) your government education was quite diligent in making sure you remained illiterate and innumerate, in the expectation that these matters would remain permanently beyond your intellectual reach. And media has of course provided you with many other ways to occupy your mind--porn, sports, celebrities, consumerism, computer games, social media, etc.--and much glamorization and encouragement of very destructive habits and behaviors, such as alcohol, drugs (legal and illegal), gambling, and destructive sexual behaviors.
There are many ramifications to this picture that I suppose people have to work out on their own, so this is just a brief sketch of one of the fundamental ways in which the world works: Reality 101.
But I think we can agree that it is not a pretty picture in terms of human freedom, socially, economically, or intellectually.Very well said. Government is the problem and not the solution. It was Reagan who said famously 40 years ago, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
And of course "What we broadly refer to as the "Left" is made up of people who view government, especially the US government, especially at the federal level, as being as all-wise, ... desires only to provide every single individual with all their earthly needs." IS A TOTALLY False premise and conservative talking point.
What defines most of us on the social Left is a desire that each citizen can do what they want so long as it does not hurt someone else (and I add, harm the environment). We view government, among other things and through our Constitution, to guarantee and prevent such harm (hence laws against things like murder and discrimination). I will fall back to Locke, one of the founders of liberalism, with this - government must protect its citizens rights to Life, health, Liberty, and Property.
Further, it has been proven that while both sides exhibit empathy, the Left show empathy to most everybody while conservatives are only empathetic to those close to them. Empathy drives many of our laws. This is why the Left proposes laws to help people and the right opposes those laws. For example:
- The Left thinks the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments are good things while the Right wish they had never been passed (and at the time fought tooth and nail to prevent their passage).
- The Left thinks the Civil and Voting Rights Acts are a must while conservatives fought very hard to keep them from being passed
- The Left wants people to be able to exercise their religion, or lack thereof, as they see fit and without government coercion. The Right will graciously allow other religions to exist so long as the fundamentalist Christian religion is a de facto state religion.
THAT, everybody, is the fundamental difference between Left and Right.Wow, what is there to redeem the Right, how could could I ally with anyone taking a firm stand against 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments?
And history is clear that they did just that and they could not be expected to do otherwise, as their endless obstanancy is part and parcel of the very definition of being "conservative".
It reflects an elitist attitude that power and privilege cannot be shared but belong to only their select few. I find that unconscionable on its face. People with attitudes like this, taking its own form today, I could NEVER support.
I regard such advocacy groups and political positions as my sworn enemy, that will be my motivation when I cast my ballots next year."What defines most of us on the social Left is a desire that each citizen can do what they want so long as it does not hurt someone else (and I add, harm the environment). We view government, among other things and through our Constitution, to guarantee and prevent such harm (hence laws against things like murder and discrimination). I will fall back to Locke, one of the founders of liberalism, with this - government must protect its citizens rights to Life, health, Liberty, and Property."
And yet...the left is the champion of food stamps, health care paid for by someone else, free housing, free transportation, free higher education and all the rest of the "free" stuff that is not free at all but simply paid for by forcing others to give up their "Property" that you also want to protect.
There are few, on either right or left, that does not want government to "protect its citizens rights to Life, health, Liberty, and Property", but it is primarily the left that will confiscate that property, and as much of it as they can grab. The primary difference, as I see it, is that the left will provide those things, at the cost of taking property, while the right will only provide that they not be taken away without due cause. There is a vast difference in philosophy there.Remember what I said about empathy. You don't give a damn about those who suffer and have their life and health threatened by forces beyond their control and we on the Left care a lot. We don't mind forking over a few penny's to help our fellow man, but you do.
I assume you are all for Trump stealing everybody's property along the border to build his wasteful and useless wall.
What are the odds that TWO of those children also had an investment deal with a Chinese bank for the tune of 1.5 BILLION dollars?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..How many trademarks did Ivanka get from the Chinese, Ken? Was this okay? Did you go hmmmmmmmmm about that as well?
Yep, it is common for the wealthy to use their connections to gain more wealth. Much of it is perfectly legal, if not perfectly ethical. I am in favor of anyone engaging in illegal conduct, no matter who they are, being investigated and prosecuted should there be enough evidence to do so.
I am also in favor of elected or appointed government officials engaging in unethical conduct suffering the appropriate consequences, whether that be removal from office, firing, or some other penalty.
I don't know much about what is in this meme, but if illegal conduct is happening, then I hope the DOJ or appropriate entity is investigating. If not, why not?Our Trump friends on the other side only want Democratic or Never-Trump people engaged in illegal conduct to be prosecuted. If they are Trump or his supporters, no investigation is needed or wanted.
Under Barr, DOJ is no longer an independent, trusted, unbiased office to conduct investigations. The DOJ is now an instrument of Trump's will.
You "presume" too much Cred. I do not think Pres. Trump should be allowed to "get away with it." And I don't think that "maybe it was not so bad."
Jumping ahead to your Clinton reference, I think that was as much of a political partisan-driven circus as this Trump impeachment effort is. I wasn't in favor of impeaching, much less removing, Pres. Clinton for not having the balls to tell the truth instead of dodging - which is how he got himself impeached. It is my opinion that what Pres. Trump appears to have done is worse than what Clinton did.
But I am not at the point where I would advocate removal from office by the Democrats in a political process - in this particular instance. I can live with impeachment as a form of censure, meaning I also think he deserves some sort of punishment. But I prefer to let the voters decide on removal in this case. I think the Democrats' actions for the last 3 years taints a perception of objectivity on their part. So maybe it is their fault that so many folks appear to not support removal from office even in the face of all the Democrats' rock-solid evidence.
All you have is an appearance of guilt Cred. That appearance may be completely accurate, and it may be buttressed by credible testimony, (and that is my opinion), but it is still just an appearance of guilt. It is enough for me to support censure/Impeachment, but it is not enough to support removal from office.
Would your opinion change if some type of exculpatory evidence came out in the Senate trial? I know that seems a stretch, but I don't think it can be called an impossibility.
I am willing to form an opinion based on my evaluation of what appears to be. And I am even willing to condemn based on my opinion of those appearances. But I am not willing to convict and remove based on appearances alone.
GAIn response to your comment on the relative severity of the case of Trump relative to Clinton, the severity of the offenses committed by Clinton did not deserve impeachment but Trump's does.
How much evidence do we have to have, GA, short of a Trump confession? Even you admit that the preponderance of the evidence points against Trump and his "account" regarding this matter.
I will agree with you on the futility of seeking a conviction by the Senate not because Trump does not deserve it, but because it is not practical politically.
If there is solid evidence of Trump's innocence during any stage of the inquiry or trial, then he is free to go. While that is not an impossibility, it is highly improbable.I don't know how much evidence I would have to have Cred. I am stuck. Betwixt and Between as some might say.
Speaking only to the Ukraine issue I have already heard enough to form my opinion. I think he abused the power of his office. But . . . I don't feel like this act of abuse warrants removal from office. I could be completely wrong but combined with the Democrats' tenure-long political actions, that is just how it feels to me.
Sort of like an aha! moment when out of the pots full of spaghetti the Democrats have thrown at the wall they finally found one that stuck.
GAI think I asked this before GA, but do you think bribery is an impeachable offense worthy of conviction if proved?
If so, and you don't think Trump's abuse of power is enough to impeach him, then I am guessing you do not think the Democrats have proved bribery?
I am not sure how much "spaghetti" the Democrats have thrown, however.
Consider:
- The Republican-sponsored Mueller Report
-- The Russians and the Trump campaign DID collude (using the colloquial meaning) but did not cross over to conspire.
-- Mueller did provide convincing evidence of many cases of obstruction of justice and then gave it to Congress to prosecute.
- Trump did, as you agree, abuse his power vis-a-vis Ukraine. You just -don't think that abuse rises to the level of impeachment
- Trump has, and I hope you agree, obstructed Congress by stonewalling it at every turn just like Nixon did. I think that is impeachable, maybe you don't.
That is what the Democrats have thrown against the wall as far as I can see.
One they are missing, in my opening, is Treason, but they haven't discussed that one.My Esoteric, for me, it is telling that you are now pursuing the "bribery" tangent. To answer your question, yes, I think outright bribery is an impeachable offense, but no, I do not think this is a case of bribery.
I will save you the trouble of providing definition links and your rationalizations that this Ukraine instance is indeed a case of bribery. It won't change my mind. I view this issue as an abuse of the power of the office.
Consider this, could it be true that the Democrats actually polled focus groups to determine the responses to charges of abuse of office or bribery? They have been pursuing a charge of abuse of office, why are they now calling it bribery instead? So yes, you are right, I do not think the Democrats have proven a case of bribery.
If you wanted me to follow that logic, then you would also be asking me to accept that every president that has ever attached strings to foreign aid is also guilty of "bribery"? Is that how you would see our past presidents' foreign aid actions? As bribery? Surely you don't want to claim that no strings, (quid pro quos), have ever been attached to our foreign aid before Pres. Trump?
If you view Impeachment and removal from office as the same thing, then you would be right, I do not see his actions as an impeachable offense. However, if viewed as the separate processes that they are, then you are wrong. I see impeachment as a form of censure, (in the form of formal charges to be adjudicated by the Senate), and think it is warranted in this case.
I will leave you to your "treason" thoughts, I think that too is a tell.
GABribery and Abuse of Power are two different things. Bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution while Abuse of Power is not. Abuse of Power falls under High Crimes and Misdemeanors as does Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress
It is a shame you can't see the clear evidence of official bribery as defined in the statutes, but it is there in plain view.
"Consider this, could it be true that the Democrats actually polled focus groups to determine the responses to charges of abuse of office or bribery?" - I do not believe that nonsense any more than you do.
Why are they calling it bribery now? Because that is the proper charge for the quid pro quo aspect of his crimes. The smear on Yovanovitch is an abuse of power - he could have just fired her after all, no questions asked.
Past foreign aid actions is a false equivalency. Those always had national security as the driving force. Trump's bribery has no national security component to it, ONLY personal gain.
To me, the Treason is self-evident by the sum of Trump's actions to put Russian interests over that of America's. The underlying fact is that Russia is at war with America and it has been for quite awhile, pre-dating Trump, pre-dating Obama, and probably pre-dating Bush. (You want a very scary book, order The Shadow War). Granted, it is not a hot war per se, but it is a cyber
war, and they are winning.
The moment that Trump told the world he believes Putin's denial of their attack on your election system over the conclusion of our intelligence communities that Russian conducted an active campaign to change the outcome of the 2016 election is when it became crystal clear Trump is a traitor -
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
To me, many of Trump's actions fit this bill.I will take the easiest one, (in my opinion), first My Esoteric. I just can't see how you can call trashing the ambassador an abuse of power. It may be a jerk and impolitic move, but I don't see any justification for an abuse of office, (or power), charge. That you do see it as such seems to imply that you think any presidential action regarding those under them that is not in line with your norms of civility and decorum is an abuse of power. I don't see it that way.
Although I think I may be repeating myself, how is that you see Biden's quid pro quo as not bribery, (because you are convinced it was in the national interest), and Trump's quid pro quo is bribery, (because you are convinced it was for personal gain)?
Both are offering/withholding something in exchange for something. What if you didn't agree with VP Biden's national interest justification, would his action then also become bribery instead of quid pro quo?
As for your thought about "shame," tell me; did you see a blue or gold dress? Is it just exasperation that drew your thought about shame? But still, I do appreciate the sentiment that made you think such.
To your "false equivalency" point, I disagree. I have previously noted that I don't think attaching strings, (asking for quid pro quo-type actions), is a bad or illegal thing. Generally, for the reason you stated - it is in our national interests. But, just because we agree with the rationale doesn't make those strings any less of a quid pro quo demand - the same action you are now calling a bribe - apparently only because you don't support the reason for the 'ask'.
If we were to go back to the beginning of these threads when the issue first broke and the whistleblower was proclaiming acts of inappropriate "quid pro quo" demands, were you calling it bribery then? I suspect such a search would show your descriptive change occurred in line with CNN and the Democrats' switch from quid pro quo to bribery. Of course, I could be wrong, I didn't go back and check. *shrug
Regarding that focus group polling "nonsense" concerning the switch from quid pro quo to bribery, maybe we both should do some looking around. I found this pretty easily:
"Several Democrats have stopped using the term “quid pro quo,” instead describing “bribery” as a more direct summation of Trump’s alleged conduct.
The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion” or “bribery” was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found “bribery” to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public."
Source: 11/14/19 Washington Post article
Finally, and as before, I will leave you to your "treason" thoughts.
GAI hate my computer!!! Let me try to recreate what I just wrote.
"I just can't see how you can call trashing the ambassador an abuse of power. " - He didn't just "trash" her, he destroyed her. Let me make it personal, sort of. Suppose that Trump, as president and the most powerful man in the world, decided one day to go after you. To slander you, to libel you and work to get your boss to fire you, which he does? You don't consider that an abuse of presidential power? You don't think that smears the office of the presidency, the office he is sworn protect and defend. He is also sworn to defend, protect, and obey the Constitution. To the degree that Trump slandered and libeled you (or her), he violated his oath of office. That is abuse of power in my book.
"because you are convinced it was for personal gain)?" - IT IS the "personal gain" part that makes it the crime of official Bribery.
(18 U.S. Code § 201 - being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;
"quid pro quo" demands, were you calling it bribery then?" - NO, I wasn't - then, just using the term of art for bribery. I started calling it by its correct name before the Democrats did, I think..Speaking to your "personal story" anecdote; no, I still wouldn't call that abuse of power - relative to the office. I might, in a fit of weakness, succumb to calling it unfair because of his bully-pulpit power, but his attack on me is not an abuse of his presidential powers - as I see it.
As for your definition, once you can prove he did it for personal gain, then you can call it an abuse of office, (bribery, if you wish).
GAOK then . We certainly see things differently.
Without Trump saying specifically that he did it for personal gain, you will never have the type of "proof" you are looking for. What is left, which is what most cases like this are like, circumstantial evidence is what you have, and we have lots and lots of it.
I do notice, however, nobody tries to defend Trump for his Obstruction of Congress, an impeachable offense.
Maybe that is because the recent hot tangent of this thread, and the one you and I have been discussing, has been the Ukraine issue?
One step at a time bud.
GAGA: Quid Pro Quo is Latin for "this for that." Biden's wasn't running for re-election when he got his 'this for that.' Trump is running for re-election and he was going to use his "this for that" to prove how corrupt the Biden's are. You can call it whatever you want, but it is using a foreign power to do Trump's bidding to give him an edge over Biden. This is why the democrats switch from quid pro quo to bribery
Article II, Section 4 provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
According to the Brookings Institute:"The Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it.""This is why the democrats switch from quid pro quo to bribery"
You might be right Mike . . .
. . . but then, so may I.
GA1. "quid pro quo" is part of the official bribery statute.
2. I stand corrected about the focus group. I could read the Post article because I refuse to pay their fee but I take your word for it.I also refuse to pay, but we get 5 free reads per month. That usually lasts me less than a week.
GAI guess that is where I am at as well, along with the NYT.
That is probably true, but it needs airing anyway.
I think most people feel Congress needs to be Obstructed... as much as possible, just about everyone who voted for Trump would agree to that, and a percentage of those who didn't.
Congress as an entity, is a disgrace, and has been for a long while now.
There are more clowns and criminals in Congress today than ever. Especially the House.If Congress is a disgrace, which I really don't disagree with because of the Republicans with a tiny bit of help from the Democrats, but Trump makes the Congress look like a great place.
And NOW look what we have.
In the middle of June, Trump learns that DoD is going to release aid to Ukraine.
He then starts inquiring about that.
On July 25, Trump asks (tells) Zelenskyy to investigate the Bidens, or else
On July 25, Trump doesn't hear Zelenskyy give a full-throated support to help him win the 2020 election and orders aid withheld that day.
On July 25, the Ukrainians ask about their aid.
The order to hold to gets to OMB and OMB official signs it but raises alarm bells about the hold being illegal.
That official has job taken away by a Trump political appointee and is never given a reason for the hold,
No reason, no report to Congress makes the hold illegal and in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and is an impeachable offense. AND KNOW that the Act was created in response to Nixon doing what Trump is doing today - impounding appropriated funds.Where do you get your ideas, Ken?
Obstructing congress just supports the fact that Trump has something to hide. If he is the Dudley do Right that you say, what does he have to hide?
The court bashed Trump in the chops today by saying that he cannot hide his alleged misconduct behind " Executive Privilege".
The opinion that you expressed regarding not cooperating with congress is just held by die hard Trumpers, you can't support that as universal beyond what has to be your own opinion. I see the lack of cooperation as obstruction and nothing more.
Would you have this same disdain toward congress if either Cinton or Obama werein the hot seat? For some reason, I don't think that you would.Actually we lived through it with Clinton, I thought it was stupidity to waste such effort going after him for a BJ.
How did that impeachment effort work out for Clinton?
How did it work out for the Republicans?
I don't expect much different in 2020.Equating bribery to a BJ simply indicates your pro-Trump bias, Ken.
Yes, Ken, even though Clinton offenses relative to what it is that Trump is being accused of is akin to an ice cream parlor compared with a house of ill-repute.
Who a man sleeps with does not cross the line regarding Constitutional separation of powers.
Clinton had a far higher approval rating than that that Trump has currently, so Clinton's experience in the late nineties may not be a good yardstick for this time around,His popularity will be tied to the economy... but the impeachment does more to put people on his side than to make people think he did wrong.
Remember, Congress has a single digit approval rating amongst Americans. Trump hovers around 50. Congress hounding him for 4 years only helps his cause.
The Democrats' dogged efforts to hurt and hinder Trump at every step is very much like what Clinton had to contend with.Trump hovers around 42. Only in one poll, Rasmussen, does he sometimes "hover" around 50.
If it is true that TraitorTrump's popularity is tied to the economy, then the economy must be in the tank right now because that is where is popularity and job performance is.
Since the economy is doing as well now as it did under Obama (and I would argue would be doing better under Clinton), which is good, then that speaks to most people thinking Trump sucks as a president since his numbers are so low.
Yes, there are those people who don't give a damn about America and only about their pocketbook (those are primarily conservatives). But fortunately there are so many more who care about the values that America stands for (and occasionally achieves).
I want to be a citizen who feels proud about their country and not just being rich. Right now I am ashamed that our nation elected such a deplorable person as Donald J. Trump.
And that is the key question for Trump supplicants - if Obama or Clinton were president today and all of the facts are identical, would they continue to make fools of themselves defending them against such obvious crimes?
You simply disagree with oversight, Ken. I understand why at this point.
Interesting fact:
- The highest percentage of Americans who wanted Clinton impeached was around 26%
- The highest percentage of Americans who wanted Nixon impeached prior to his resignation was around 46%
- Why do 51% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed today?LATEST TIMELINE
DEC 2018: Ukrainian court by MP Rozenblat that Sytnyk and MP Leshchenko interfered in the 2016 election.
MAR 20, 2019: Lutsenko alleges that Joe Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin to help Hunter Biden
APR 21, 2019: Trump congratulates Zelenskyy but doesn't mention corruption even though that was in the talking points
APR 29, 2019: Whistleblower learns Yovanovitch had been recalled and that Giuliani was trying to contact Zelenskyy's team
MAY 2019: Giuliani flirts with going to Ukraine then after criticism says he will not
JUN 12, 2019: Trump says he would NOT alert FBI if foreign gov'ts offered him dirt on political opponents
JUN 21, 2019: Giuliani tweets that Zelenskyy was still silent on investigating the mystical Ukrainian election interference
JUL 16, 2019: Leshchenko publicly states that a higher court overturned the decision to uphold the Roxenblat complaint (see Dec 2018)
JUL 18, 2019: Trump places an informal hold on Ukrainian aid.
JUL 25, 2019: Trump and Zelenskyy talk where Trump asks Zelenskyy to "do him a favor" by investigating the Bidens (which Trump admitted on Sunday) and election in return for aid and a White House meeting.
JUL 25 2019: Formal letter to withhold aid to Ukraine is signed.
JUL 26, 2019: Volker and Sondland advise Zelenskyy on how to "navigate" Trump's demands
JUL 26, 2019: Sondland calls Trump on a cell phone in public where Trump asks about the "investigations" and Sondland says they are going fine and that Zelenskyy will "do anything you ask"
AUG 2019: Giuliani says he talked to a representative of Zelenskyy on the phone
AUG 9, 2019: Trump tells reporters that Zelenskyy has (once again) been invited to the WH
Aug 12, 2019: Whistleblower files complaint
AUG 26, 2019: Intel IG forwards complaint to acting DNI
AUG 30, 2019: Trump considers blocking $250 million in Military aid to Ukraine in addition to aid already blocked
SEP 1, 2019: Pence meets with Zelenskyy in Warsaw
SEP 2, 2019: Deadline for DNI to send complaint to Congress, he doesn't
SEP 9, 2019: IC IG informs Schiff of held up complaint. House launches investigation
SEP 11, 2019: After learning about complaint, Trump releases the aid
I'll finish up later.SEP 20, 2019: Leaks about the Whistleblower complaint start mounting; Pence talks to Zelenskyy
SEP 22, 2019: Reports surface that Trump pressed Zelenskyy to investigate Bidens on July 25 call
SEP 22, 2019: Trump says he talked to Zelenskyy about Biden
SEP 23, 2019: Trump says his call with Zelenskyy was "perfect".
SEP 23, 2019: It is reported that Trump put a hold on Ukraine aid a week before "the Call".
SEP 24, 2019: Trump tweets he is going to release the transcript of "the Call" and Pelosi announces she is opening a formal impeachment inquiry on Trump
SEP 25, 2019: Trump releases Call summary and meets with Zelenskyy at UN. Whistleblower complaint reaches Capitol Hill
I don't know if I should applaud, or be aghast, at your ability to focus in on the minutia, or the particular, while disregarding the bigger picture GA.
It is certainly one of the key differences in how we view things, you have a keen wit for being able to focus on the topic at hand while ignoring any other particulars that don't specifically deal with the issue.
When it comes to politics, and debates in general, I lack the ability to shut out the outside factors. You have a good mind for a court room or investigation and legalese, mine I guess has been shaped to more tactical and objective related thought processes.
I can't look at this for anything more than it is, the big picture, the effort to frame Trump with a falsified investigation, to tie him to the Russians, to work from the outset to convince America he needs to be impeached, from the moment he stepped into office.
He is outlandish, insufferable, impossible to listen to unless (like when addressing UN or State of the Nation) he is reading a well written and rehearsed script.
None-the-less he has exposed a level of corruption, which it seems everyone arguing against him in this thread is fine with, "it may be unethical that they are funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through their charities or kids, but its not illegal".
See, my problem is, just because the people making the laws made it legal for them to sell out America's interests, and profit from their political position... doesn't make it right, doesn't make it something I am OK with.
Trump continues to bring to light corruption that no one would know about if not for him.... for example Hunter Biden. An entire cabal of corruption is being exposed, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc. all making themselves multi-millionaires though foreign "investments" into their kid's corporations, or their Charities, or campaign donations, selling out America to the Chinese. Or who-ever else comes up with enough cash.
In my opinion, Trump hasn't done nearly enough damage yet, there are still plenty of cockroaches in Congress that need to be flushed out into the sunlight.
This political sideshow is meaningless to anyone who shares my views on the matter, I would dare say that is at least half the nation, maybe more, that could care less what Congress has to say... about anything.Ken: What you are good at is distraction without proof. What is your source for your grand assertions about Trump bringing to light corruption?
I would like Ken, to explain why his universal grand scheme of things absolving Trump is the objective and correct one?
I can't buy this Trump as hero scenario, and Ken, I don't share your views. Regardless of your opinion of Clinton or Biden ,that does not absolve Trump for his abuse of power, defiance and obstruction regarding the investigation conducted by Congress.
Why do I get the impression, that Ken has a knowledge in clear opposition to the proeponderance of evidence? Ken, what makes you so much more credible than everybody else?
In my opinion, Trump is just as big a cockroach as the ones in Congress that you seek to "flush out"."Regardless of your opinion of Clinton or Biden ,that does not absolve Trump for his abuse of power . . ."
I agree Cred, 'whataboutism', (damn I hate to resort to catch-phrases), almost never adds anything to a discussion.
GA
Ken keeps picking dumb examples. For example:
"for example Hunter Biden. An entire cabal of corruption is being exposed, " - the FACT is the Republican controlled Congress knew about this, looked at it, and PASSED on it.
"Clinton, Kerry, Biden, etc. all making themselves multi-millionaires though foreign "investments" into their kid's corporations, or their Charities, or campaign donations, selling out America to the Chinese." - THIS is, of course, a pure Trump (lie). In fact, wasn't it Trump and his kids who just pleaded guilty to charity fraud in New York?""for example Hunter Biden. An entire cabal of corruption is being exposed, " - the FACT is the Republican controlled Congress knew about this, looked at it, and PASSED on it."
Trump promised to drain the swamp. yes the Rep, and Dema passed on the Biden's possible indiscretions. Guess we have a new sheriff in town. One that could care less about a party, and is willing to open a large ugly can of worms. The Biden's need to be investigated, that can is opened. Trump needs to demand the investigation at this point. No more sweeping it under a carpet. The carpet is overflowing with plenty we are about to become aware of vis the Horowitz/Dirham investigations.But let me ask, Shar, how can a swamp drain the swamp? He can only add to it.
I am surprised you haven't learned yet that Trump only cares about Trump. He doesn't give a damn about you, Blue, me, or the nation. Not one iota. And you both need to be careful for if he hears about you saying just one bad thing about him, he will turn on you like he did Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, and Cohen.
We already know about the Horowitz investigation, it drew a blank and has proclaimed the FBI innocent of all the Republican made-up charges. They, and anyone who would think the FBI would stoop to Trump's level ought to be ashamed of themselves.The Horowitz report has not been released? Not sure where you got your info from? I believe ve it will be out on Dec 9th. Durham has not released a date he will wrap up his investigation. Please offer a resource where you got the opinion "We already know about the Horowitz investigation, it drew a blank and has proclaimed the FBI innocent of all the Republican made-up charges. They and anyone who would think the FBI would stoop to Trump's level ought to be ashamed of themselves."
This kind of accusation needs some evidence. I hate to say this but that accusation is exactly what a troll would offer up. Hopefully, you have a resource.No, it has not been released. But like most things in Washington that aren't classified, things leak all over the place. I suspect much of it came from those witnesses who reviewed their statements recently.
In any case, several reliable news organizations are reporting the same thing, so I don't expect it to be contradicted by the report. Here is one.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 487079001/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/ … se-report/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/p … eport.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/22/20977630 … estigation
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … -as-sloppy (Of course Carter Page is biased. Republicans very much respect Horowitz's thoroughness and (unfortunately for them) fairness.I respect Horowitz's reputation and will take it as well-founded. I see that all the media outlets are being careful with their wording when quoting the WP and NYT. Their reputation for getting it wrong precedes them. However, I appreciate all the links.
Vox --- "Without seeing the report — which finally has a due date of December 9 — it’s hard to gauge exactly how significant this alleged alteration is, but Horowitz has reportedly referred this evidence to John Durham, the prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr to separately review the 2016 Russia investigation. Durham’s inquiry has since expanded to become a criminal probe."
I feel Durham is combining Horowitz's findings along with his more extensive investigation. he did ask for much more athot=rity in regards to having the ability to indite and construct a grand jury.
Just my opinion, I think we will see a pretty big scandal come out of all this. I guess we are once again playing the waiting game.While CNN, NYT, and WaPo have missed the mark a couple of times (which they always correct, something Fox does not do), they get it very right the vast majority of times. Not sure what you have that drives a comment like "their reputation precedes them).
Since Barr handpicked Durham, my doubts about his veracity are already raised. I am not sure what is left to investigate since Mueller and Horowitz seemed to cover it all. What else is there that the Republicans have made up?
Comey has been cleared of any political bias as to beginning the investigation by Mueller and Horowitz. So has McCabe. So has Strzok. With each, Horowitz found they did something else wrong (which has yet to be adjudicated, btw; in fact McCabe is suing to get his job back for wrongful termination). Bottom line, though, they have been all cleared of political bias as it relates to the Russia investigation.
So, again, who else do the Trump-Republicans suspect of wrong doing?
Again, the "criminal probe" appears to be from the low level FBI lawyer who screwed up. That is who Horowitz referred.'Since Barr handpicked Durham, my doubts about his veracity are already raised."
I trust both and have good faith that if anyone that was involved in any form of 2016 election crimes they will be prosecuted.
I think it amazing how you can dismiss a lawyer that falsified a document to the FISA court as "a sweet up".
"So, again, who else do the Trump-Republicans suspect of wrongdoing?"
It's actually been the Dems from day one that has been searching for anything to pin on Trump.
There is all this talk about hearsay and no evidence in the impeachment inquiry. The one thing people are forgetting about, or if they listen to the propaganda side of news, they are not aware of is Fareed Zakaria's GPS News show on CNN, Sunday Mornings.
According to Fareed, after Trump's "deal" with Zelenksy, the president of the Ukraine contacted Fareed to setup when he was going to appear on his show and bad mouth the Bidens, the way Trump wanted him to do as part of the "favor."
After the whistle blower and the transcript came out, all bets were off. Zelensky contacted Fareed and cancelled the meeting. So there you have it. I'm sure Fareed's phone conversation with Zelensky was recorded if anyone needs proof.
Trump calls CNN the fake news and the enemy of the people, but yet he wanted Zelensky to pronounce to the world that he had dirt on the Bidens. Why would Trump do that? I believe it's because he knows CNN is credible to the world while the real propaganda outlets are not.
It appears as if Zelensky was prepared to lie to the world, so that he could get his money or maybe he was going to come clean and out Trump. Who knows where the truth is in the Trump world?I believe the story goes Zelinsky was going to announce he was conducting an investigation into Burisma and the Biden's connection. He was not to announce he had "dirt on Biden's". I don't think there is any evidence that the Biden's did anything wrong, as of yet anyway. It would be very unethical for the new president to make such a statement.
Not sure where you connect a crime to the WH asking Zelinsky to make the announcement of the investigation into Burisma and possible wrongdoing by the Biden's? After all, Trump openly asked for the investigation be done into CroudStrike and Burisma and the Bidens. At any rate, Zelinsky did not do the interview and the Ukrian received the aid without a pro quid quo. The motive could have been there, but it seems it would be hard to prove. And with our new way of handling crimes here in America. Accuse first then set to making an attempt to prove it. Trump, sort of caught onto this way of crime-solving due to the way it's being done to him.
At any rate, I have read several articles that the new prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapkais is investigating Burisma. No mention of the Biden's. I have provided a Reuters article in regard to the story.
"KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has widened its investigation into the founder of energy company Burisma to include suspicion of embezzling state funds, Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka said on Wednesday."
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine has widened its investigation into the founder of energy company Burisma to include suspicion of embezzling state funds, Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka said on Wednesday.The crime is in campaign finance law and pertains to us having elections free of foreign interference. After Russia interfered in 2016, it was our hope that we could keep foreign interference out of 2020. Then Trump withholds a meeting and aid from Ukraine until they announce an investigation as a smear against his chief political rival for the 2020 election. Soliciting foreign interference is the crime. He escaped culpability in 2016, even though he publicly solicited such interference live on national television and got it that same night.
"Then Trump withholds a meeting and aid from Ukraine until they announce an investigation as a smear against his chief political rival for the 2020 election. " - IS Bribery
"Soliciting foreign interference" - IS a different crime, probably Abuse of Power.
Again, this is the crime of bribery.
Trump says I want you to investigate my political opponent and until you say you will do it, you cannot have meeting at the WH (an official act) and Congressionally approved aid (an official act); the withholding of which is also illegal in and of itself.
Now IF Trump were actually investigating corruption in general, that would be a different story; but that is not the case. The only people who actually believe investigating the Bidens is the same as investigating corruption in general as well as the fantasy Ukraine election interference are Trump, Trump-Republicans, and Trump supplicants.
The fact that Zelenskyy ultimately didn't comply, although he set up the meeting to do just that, doesn't mean a thing. The attempted bribery is the crime. If he had succeeded, it would have been a worse crime.
Now I suppose it is possible you don't think attempted crimes are crimes. Is that the case?
I think if you dig a little deeper you will find that " into the founder" is the key phrase. I am not sure they are even investigating the company Burisma, just its founder who is a real character and much of the illegal crap he is accused of doesn't involve Burisma (but some does)."Again, this is the crime of bribery."
This will never fly with the Senate trial, no evidence, not even a suitable motive can be proven.So, despite Trump offering no evidence that it was anything else but personal gain, you still think Trump was just worried about Ukraine corruption. Remember, good circumstantial evidence is still a reason to convict even though you may disagree with that legal premise.
Will it fly in the Senate? Probably not since the jury pool is very biased and the Republicans, at least, don't care about the truth. They don't care because they are afraid for their jobs.
The Democrats, as biased as they are, have truth on their side.
If they did what America wants, they would convict."So, despite Trump offering no evidence that it was anything else but personal gain, you still think Trump was just worried about Ukraine corruption."
Guilty until proven innocent, right? To date there isn't a single piece of evidence, outside of opinions, assumptions, and presumptions of guilt...but evidence is still necessary to show innocence.
Still, guess it works for Dems that don't really care about guilt or innocence, just that Trump not win the 2020 election.While there is tons of it, you keep Trumping (lying) that it doesn't exist. SAD.
Well damn Ken, you are really tasking me with this comment. In one respect you are right, I do try to stay focused on the topic of the discussion. That 'whataboutism' term everyone is tossing around nowadays is truly an apt description of this, (yours), and many others' comments in these threads.
What about Hunter, what about Hillary, what about Obama . . . almost never adds any value to the topic being discussed.
But, as it feels like I should offer a bit of self-defense, I think I am fully aware of the big picture of most of these forum discussions, but if I didn't stay focused on the topic it would be impossible to have realistic discussions. I can talk about a bucket of water that came from the ocean without having to talk about how the waves of the ocean affected getting that bucket of water.
Put aside the "big picture" for a moment Ken. I would first ask if you thought Pres. Trump's actions, (re; Ukraine), amounted to a quid pro quo. Considering it is my opinion that it did, I would be disappointed if you tried to say it wasn't.
Then I would ask if you thought quid pro quo was automatically bad, and since I do not think it is, I would hope you would agree. So, could it be that we are in semi-agreement? Could it be that you see Pres. Trump's actions for what they are, (as I see them), but not as an offense as the Democrats are portraying them?
I know I have posed a lot of questions, but I am only trying to offer a middle ground that we might start from. All the other big-picture stuff you speak of; Russian collusion, Democrat witch hunt, etc. etc. are really extraneous to the topic being discussed.
To stay focused, (and not deflect with the other stuff), if it is your opinion that Pres. Trump did not try to extract something for something in this Ukraine deal, then we would be at complete loggerheads on this topic.
GA
Well GA, I spared myself paying heed to the "investigations" and "hearings" I have devoted about 30 minutes of total time to this topic.
Just enough time to keep tabs on what was going on. So my opinion of it is pretty much what it was weeks ago, he was one President talking to another President... one populist Pres calling to congratulate another populist Pres, and see if the new guy could help discover what shenanigans had been going on there with Clinton, Biden, etc.
Quid Pro Quo?
No more than when I ask a favor of someone I've recently met. To begin to build the relationship, to work on some interest in common... this is just normal stuff, but at a Presidential level. While it was uncouth and somewhat crass in its delivery because Trump is not a polished Diplomat, it doesn't appear to come close to anything arm-twisting or threatening.
Think about it, he is asking about a corrupt/criminal company that made billions of dollars disappear, he's asking about Biden who WAS knee deep in whatever was going on there when he was VP, as was it seems, his son. From politicians in Congress to government agents that are probably more devoted to a 'cause' and are about as objective in doing their duty as My Esoteric is in his political viewpoints.
The man was framed, a false dossier was created on him, with intent and effort on the parts of the former head of the CIA, former head of the FBI and other high-ups in the FBI, the head of the DNC, the Clinton Campaign and they even used foreign political connections that they had developed in the Ukraine. To derail his campaign, and then when that failed, set up the Russian Conspiracy to Impeach him and remove him from office.
Can we agree on that? Isn't that what we have learned in the last 3 years? Isn't that the truth hidden by the media, camouflaged by the Mueller investigation, buried beneath the constant railing against Trump?
From the start of Trump's presidency, every ally they had in Congress, in the Media, and beyond has been focused on his removal.
Isn't that something you would try to get to the bottom of, if you were President?
Those 'things' are the reason for what is being discussed.
Trump congratulated Zelensky in the call for winning his presidential election, and Zelensky took the opportunity to flatter Trump. It then went on for a while until:
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," Trump began his reply.
He went on to ask Zelensky to look into details about a company that investigated hacking of the Democratic National Committee prior to the 2016 election that was linked back to Russia.
"We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine," Zelensky said in his response.
Much later in the conversation, is when Trump brought up Biden.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and that he was shut down and that's really unfair," Trump said to Zelensky in the transcript summary.
"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great," Trump adds. "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
I don't know what to tell you GA, its Trump, this is his M.O., just who sets the rules for how two Presidents talk to one another and what is acceptable to discuss?
Yours truly,
Loggerhead"Well GA, I spared myself paying heed to the "investigations" and "hearings" I have devoted about 30 minutes of total time to this topic." - WHICH IS why you remain so uniformed about the topic and only repeat what the conspiracy media feeds you.
"Think about it, he is asking about a corrupt/criminal company that made billions of dollars disappear," - BECAUSE you are so uniformed, you get your facts wrong. Burisma is NOT accused of what you mention (yes, they are accused, but not convicted as your side says all the time about Trump, of other things). If you were informed you would have reported that it is Bursima's founder who is accused of such things when he was a corrupt minister. If you were informed, you would know he had nothing to do with hiring Hunter. Because you are uniformed, your are basically making the argument that the son is a crook because his father was which all informed people know is a false equivalency..
"that Biden stopped the prosecution " - BECAUSE Trump is a crook, he ignores the truth and is just repeating a Russian Trump (lie).
"It then went on for a while until:
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," Trump began his reply." - BECAUSE YOU are uniformed you don't know that a whole section was left out of your quote. The actual quote is:
ZELENSKYY - "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though ..." - BEING INFORMED you would have known your presentation was FALSE.
"The man was framed, a false dossier was created on him," - BECAUSE YOU are uniformed you don't know that the Dossier has NOT been shown to false. In fact, many parts have been confirmed while only a couple parts have been called into question. The rest still needs to be confirmed or disproved.A very emotional response.
I actually was familiar with the whole quote, I just don't care to look at it the way you do... I don't care that he mentioned javelins. I don't care how the media or the Dems in Congress paint it.
I worked for the government for many years, I know how deals get done, how lies become truth, and how politicians handle foreign affairs.
So I know this is a witch hunt, I don't need to watch the show they are putting on for those that don't have better things to do with their lives.
Almost nothing has been confirmed regarding that dossier, if any of it could have stuck to Trump, they would have pursued it with a vengeance.
Its sad to see so many pursue this effort, be they in Congress, or people like yourself, Just vote the man out of office... that's all the Dems had to do was get behind a reasonable candidate that will put the American people first, and they would win.
Instead we get lunatics up there talking about open borders, free healthcare for non-citizens, free abortions for trans-genders... total lunacy from HALF the people considered front runners for the Presidency.
And you think Trump is going to lose to that?
The House can impeach him ten times over, he will still get re-elected if he is facing off against the likes of Biden or Booker, maybe if the choice is Yang or Warren they have a shot... someone who is outside the D.C. Belt or like Warren is, hostile to politics as usual."I actually was familiar with the whole quote" - THEN THAT makes it much worse doesn't because you just proved you were trying to intentionally deceive everyone.
I worked for the gov't as well, for a career. Maybe you didn't, but I went to ethics training and it is very clear to me what Trump did would land me in jail if I did it.
What is sad is that so many people like you want a crook, a psychopath, a dangerous narcissist (which is probably redundant), and a bully as their chosen one.
60% of women want Trump impeached and convicted. It will be much more by the time election happens. Look what happened in 2018 when the Republicans lost only a few extra percentage of women - it was a wipe-out, wasn't it.
You got the last part right Ken, we are at loggerheads.
Your previous reference to, (and continued focus on), the "big picture" draws to mind the reverse of another cliche'; the one about not seeing the forest for the trees.
And even worse, my stubbornness is starting to kick in. Let me try one of Socrates' steps; first, find a point of common ground to start from.
Just addressing the concept, and discarding any affiliation with the Trump/Ukraine issue; Do you believe it is automatically wrong for any national leader to ask for, (demand/expect), some action in return for foreign aid?
I do not think so, and I think, (if I gave it some time and research), I could find plenty of historical instances where our foreign aid has been neck-deep in the quid pro quo pool - with universally laudable mutually beneficial results.
GAI think in terms of how you spell it out, I can agree. As in, this is the norms for interactions between world leaders.
In terms of political gaming, I believe it takes away Biden's ability to be a 'for the people' candidate... when it seems more like he's 'for the profit'.
Maybe that was Trump's goal all along..."when it seems more like he's 'for the profit'." - AND THERE you go again, fabricating things. Can you back that up with any facts whatsoever??
Exculpatory Evidence - Yes, it would weigh into my decision. But what would that look like and why hasn't any been presented to-date? My guess is there isn't any.
I bet Bolton will testify at the trial. If the timing is right (meaning the judge finally decides it is ok for him to speak to Congress), he might even testify at the Judiciary hearings.
But let me ask;
If Bribery is proven, would you convict?
If Obstruction of Congress is clear, would you convict?
If the Mueller report satisfies all of the elements of proof for Obstruction of Justice, would you convict? (In my opinion as a former prosecutor of Special Courts Martial for the Army, I think it does.*)
If it is proven that Trump instructed Giuliani to smear Yovanavitch, would you consider that 1) and abuse of power and 2) impeachable?
* I didn't have to be a lawyer for that two-year stint, but I did have to follow all of the rules of evidence and prove my cases in front of a military judge and sometimes juries. And these weren't all fluff cases like AWOLs, They were assault and battery, robbery, drug possession, etc. I could send soldier to jail for up to 5 years if I won. It finally got to the point where I didn't need a real lawyer standing next to me.
BREAKING: Former Ukrainian MP Alleges Biden Family Received $12M Kickback From Transaction With Burisma Owner To Kill London Criminal Cases, Provides Details To DOJ
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/in … ls-to-doj/You do realize, don't you, that all of those former MPs this conspiracy theory story is based on are all corrupt, don't you. Boy you are gullible.
Well, another HUGE disappointment for GOP - the DOJ IG report comes up with - wait for it - NOTHING to speak of.
The Department of Justice Inspector General's report on the start of FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election will say the probe was properly launched but lower-level employees made a series of mistakes, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics … index.html
This Is Why They Must Impeach: Ukrainian MP Says Burisma Financed Clinton Campaign With $10M Unmarked Cash, Biden Personally Prevented Money Laundering Witness From Entering USA
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/in … ering-usa/We are delighted to hear that you have formed opinions about Donald Trump's personality, and have documented this.
You are now in the running for the coveted Miss Triviality awards.
I would say that the belief that your opinions of someone's personality is relevant to anything is a personality disorder in its own right. (Just my opinion.)Trump, Trump supplicants, and Trump Republicans looked like FOOLS yesterday when it came out that the DOJ IG will find the Russian investigation started out just fine, thank you. This in spite of all the protestations from the Right that the FBI was politically motivated.
NOW, Graham, Johnson, and Grassley (I'll no longer honor them by using their titles since they disrespect their offices) are picking up on what Zelenskyy failed to do - Investigate the Bidens for Trump's personal gain. They should not be allowed to vote on impeachment.
AND, it turns out Nunes went to Vienna to meet with the former corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin to dig up dirt on the Bidens as well in order to help Trump get reelected - he came up empty handed.
Those efforts will fail and Trump, Trump supplicants, and Trump Republicans will become FOOLS all over again.I just heard a talking head put it best: " Dr. Fiona Hill eloquently explained that what Devin Nunes, Trump, and his enablers are doing is engaging in Russian propaganda ... all of this is part of a Russian security service propaganda campaign ... the Republicans and Trump are willing co-conspirators" Nunes spent $63,000 tax payer dollars on a domestic political errand.
AND BOY does that comment say a lot about you, Blue. Now we know why you are a Trump supplicant. You don't care if someone who is dangerously mentally runs the nation or not.
Exactly what kind of an American are you??? Your comment sounds more like what a Russian Troll would say. Are you a Russian Troll disguised as an American?
Were you part of the Russian effort to sow discord and divide America during the 2020 election? Just asking.Plenty of willful ignorance to go around on the Right, Scott!
My Esoteric, I would say that people posting arguments that apparently originated at their most recent teenage girls' slumber party are a bit of a problem--at least in instances in which they vote in significant numbers.
As I said, you seem to perfectly OK with the leader of America being dangerously mentally ill. So, I ask again, are you a Russian Troll? Fess up now.
Would the Russians try to convince the public that our President is "dangerously mentally ill" without ever having him checked? I'd say the possibility is quite good - they DID try (and succeed) driving a massive wedge in our country.
You presume "without ever having him checked? " is a necessary condition. As many of the mental health professionals who presented their EXPERT opinion noted, you don't need personal consultations to determine if a person is behaving abnormally.
All you need is to observe the person over a period of time, read what they have written, listen to what they say, watch what they do, and see what actions they take.
These experts, of which YOU are not, say that is all they need. It is to determine WHY it is happening is when they need a sit-down. They don't need a sit-down to tell IF it is happening.
To answer your question though, of course the Russians would try that since it is so obvious that he is. But even if it weren't obvious, they would try as well. The difference is, there would be no mental health experts backing them up with data and their own expert opinion derived from years of experience treating people like Trump.How are Nixon and Trump different?
- Nixon hated the Soviets and was not their stooge - Trump carries the Russian's water and may be their asset
- Nixon despite being a crook, nevertheless did great things for America - Trump, in addition to being a crook, has destroyed America
How are Trump and Nixon the same?
- Both are (were) dangerously mentally ill.
- Both obstructed justice
- Both obstructed Congress by stonewalling their subpoenas which the Supreme Court in Nixon's case, found against him every time
- Both abused their power in several different ways
How are Nixon Republicans different from Trump Republicans?
- Nixon Republicans put Country over Party while Trump Republicans put Party over Country, sadly.
Uncalled for --- Have you ever thought of checking out Bueherons profile and good reputation here at HP? Your comment was rude and you need to apologize.
If a person is espousing Russia-generated conspiracy theories after knowing they have been thoroughly debunked by our intelligence agencies, then it is fair to wonder why. If you side with Putin over your own country, then your motives will naturally be questioned.I
Yes, fair to "wonder why"... Not fair to call her a troll for her opinion? Side with Putin? I would appreciate it if you could point me to the comment where Blueheron sided with Putin? Russia-generated conspiracy theories?
I should not bring this up, but trolls, as a rule, jump into the conversation to promote or starts quarrels or upsets people, distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages. You seem to jump in often to do just that. I mean accusing BH of " espousing Russia-generated conspiracy theories "...1. Blue is not giving an opinion. An opinion has some basis in reality. What Blue's so-called opinion is, is just propagating the Russian Secret Service attack lines.
Normal trolls are as you say; but Russian trolls are a much different breed. I only use "troll" because that is the euphemism of the Russian Internet Research Agency troll farm run by various elements of Russian intelligence.
This is just one of Blue's Russian propaganda points that Dr. Fiona Hill, a Russian expert, was talking about.
"BREAKING: Former Ukrainian MP Alleges Biden Family Received $12M Kickback From Transaction With Burisma Owner To Kill London Criminal Cases, Provides Details To DOJ" - Says Blue.
Do you know why the "Former Ukrainian MP" is former? He was kicked out for corruption, he has an ax grind. I suspect strongly that when our intel agencies, which Republicans think are corrupt in their entirety, dig into that one, if they already haven't, they will find the Russian Security Service behind just like they found they are behind the Ukrainian election meddling Trump (lie)I responded directly to your assertion that MyEsoteric should apologize by explaining why it is reasonable to question a person who promotes Russian propaganda. I know you don't like it when you are challenged, but your calling me a troll or in any way negatively judging me is just a bonus to me, as you, like most Trumpeters, show remarkably poor judgment in your ability to discern truth from fiction.
Impeachment witness warns that conspiracy theories advance Russia’s agenda as they divide Americans"I should not bring this up, but trolls, as a rule, jump into the conversation to promote or starts quarrels or upsets people, distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages."
I was addressing a specific user in regards to his untoward post. It had nothing to do with anything but his disrespectful uncalled for comment You found it necessary to jump in with blubber about Russia...
"PrettyPantherposted 4 hours ago
SHARLEE01 WROTE:
Uncalled for --- Have you ever thought of checking out Bueherons profile and good reputation here at HP? Your comment was rude and you need to apologize.
If a person is espousing Russia-generated conspiracy theories after knowing they have been thoroughly debunked by our intelligence agencies, then it is fair to wonder why. If you side with Putin over your own country, then your motives will naturally be questioned.
Seems you feel it suitable to jump in, change the subject, become argumentive, for no reason at all. As I said I was not disputing either of their opinions, just pointing out rudeness.
Not sure why feel My Esoteric needs any help defending himself. He certainly has proven he is very self-sufficient.
Actually no, I haven't. But until he stops acting like a Russian Troll, I must keep in the back of my mind that he might be.
Blue: You can't be serious. You are putting us on, right? That's all you have for a comeback?
And you just described how prosecutions work. I guess you don't believe in how the American justice system works. Sorry
Ah, the left's inability to comprehend the legal concept of hearsay is astounding. It's also very amusing.
And your inability to understand how investigations work is incomprehensible.
Just to be clear - Hearsay is OK during investigations (the House). Most hearsay is not OK during a trial (the Senate).
Do you understand the difference now are are you just going to help the Russians in their propaganda campaign of dividing America by feeding false information?Work with me here.
Just to be clear. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in a court of law.
SO...if you takeaway all of the Democrats hearsay evidence from their case against President Donald Trump, what do they have?
The answer is...not much if anything.
Since the Republicans control the Senate they can call Hunter Biden as well as Joe Biden, Adam Schiff as witnesses. Nobody is going to be able to stop the Republicans from asking witnesses questions.
Should be fun.YOU work with me now. Hearsay IS ALLOWED in investigations such as what the House is doing. Since it is obvious you aren't in the loop, the House is an INVESTIGATIVE body. Shheeeesh.
Yes they can, and like Trump did, they can all refuse to come. If they force then to show up through the courts, then Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, and all those other witnesses who refused a subpoena will have to testify as well. That will be fun.
I actually hope the Bidens and Schiff do testify, they will make the Trumpers look like the fools they are.
BTW, why is Horowitz, which you were putting so much hope into, finding the FBI did it right, like all patriotic Americans knew they did?
Readmikenow: Your posting of memes is just confirmation bias. It's an easy way for you to confirm your own biased beliefs while insulting the other side. Some of us like to do the research and analysis from both sides, instead of buying everything that Trump, the GOP senate, Fox News, and Breitbart are presenting.
Not only does Trump not comprehend legal concepts, he does not care about them. They just get in the way of him doing his "deals.""Some of us like to do the research and analysis from both sides, instead of buying everything that Trump, the GOP senate, Fox News, and Breitbart are presenting. "
Oh that is too funny. Yeah, (this is sarcasm) you prefer organizations with high journalistic standards like CNN, the NYT and other such liberal rags. Puh-leeze. You could take that comedy on the road.
I think President Donald Trump understands legal concepts very well. It's the main reason he is able to make the left look...let me be gentle here...less than intelligent. It is the left who doesn't understand legal concepts, if they did, there would not have this sham impeachment hearing.
"It's an easy way for you to confirm your own biased beliefs while insulting the other side."
Yeah, and? I have the courage to admit I have a strong Republican and supporter of President Donald Trump. With the behavior of those on the left, I can't see where they deserve anything OTHER than insults. I mostly laugh at them.
Now, do YOU have the courage to admit your bias? Or are you so detached from the realm of reality you can't see it?
Just wondering.Readmikenow: If you are a Trump supporter and listen to Fox and Brietbart, then this is what you are led to believe. This also comes from Russian propaganda and also fits in very well with your bias confirmation.
All of these statements can be proven to be false. I challenge you to prove they are true.
1. The whistle blower made up a false story.
2. Democrats gave their hacked computer server to Crowdstrike owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian.
3. Ukraine is the third most corrupt country in the world.
4. Ukraine is guilty of meddling in the 2016 election to help Hillary.
5. The probe of Russia’s actual interference in 2016 was a deep state plot.
6. The legal impeachment process is actually an illegal coup.
7. Adam Schiff made the phone call and then rehearsed it to embarrass everybody.
8. Marie Yonayovitch wouldn’t have Trump’s photo in the embassy.
9. European countries refused to give aid to the Ukraine.
10. Obama only sent pillows and sheets to aid the Ukraine.
11. Polls have now turned very strongly against the impeachment.
I challenge you to prove these statements to be true. This is the kind of brainwashing and cult thinking that Trump, the Russians, and the real fake news like Fox are propagating to ruin this country. The really sad and scary part is that his supporters, including the GOP congress are buying into it.
Of course I have confirmation bias. Everybody has it, but we are living in two different realities. One is telling the truth and one is not. Which one do you think you are in when you post the impeachment inquiry as just being hearsay passed as rumors from one person to another in pure chaos and ending up with Adam Schiff?I have a better challenge, prove they're wrong.
Go for it.You WON Peoplepower!!
Read can't prove any of his and Trump's Trumps (lies) are correct. Since Trump and the Trump-Republicans and the Trump-supplicants made the claims, the onus is on them to prove them true because if THEY said it, they can be presumed to be FALSE.
Yes, we do prefer "organizations with high journalistic standards like CNN, the NYT" and the Washington Post., CBS, NBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, BBC, Reuters, and the like. Why do you listen to outlets that have no standards, high or low, like Fox, Brietbart, Limbaugh, and other conspiracy sites, etc?.
"I think President Donald Trump understands legal concepts very well. " - YEAH, about as well as is 105 IQ brain understands economics, lol. He doesn't even know the American government has three co-equal branches (do you know?). He thinks and acts like there is only one branch - Trump.
I can guarantee that you are no Republican, at least not the kind Lincoln was proud to be. Hell, he fought a civil war to stop people with your beliefs.
No, there is no viable Republican party anymore, just the divisive Trump party which hopefully, after 2020, will go the way of the Federalist party once they went rogue.
Our bias is to the truth. Our bias is to facts. Our bias is to logic. Our bias is to reason. What's yours?Yes, we do prefer "organizations with high journalistic standards like CNN, the NYT" and the Washington Post. Why do you listen to outlets that have no standards, high or low, like Fox, Brietbart, Limbaugh, etc?.
"I think President Donald Trump understands legal concepts very well. " - YEAH, about as well as is 105 IQ brain understands economics, lol. He doesn't even know the American government has three co-equal branches (do you know?). He thinks and acts like there is only one branch - Trump.
I can guarantee that you are no Republican, at least not the kind Lincoln was proud to be. Hell, he fought a civil war to stop people with your beliefs.
No, there is no viable Republican party anymore, just the divisive Trump party which hopefully, after 2020, will go the way of the Federalist party once they went rogue.
Our bias is to the truth. Our bias is to facts. Our bias is to logic. Our bias is to reason. What's yours?I've always believed liberals were delusional individuals with low IQs and little or no ability to comprehend reality.
This does nothing but confirm beliefs of liberals.
Thanks for the comedy. Liberals are a laugh a minute. You guys are fun.Good one.
Impeachment is unpopular in the swing states and among independents. The Democrats have two problems.
1. The funds to the Ukraine were only delayed. The Ukrainians weren't even aware they were delayed.
2. No investigation into Joe Biden took place.
These two facts destroy any allegation of quid pro quo, bribery or extortion. It doesn't matter what anyone said, alluded to, felt or assumed. These two facts make all of the irrelevant.
They go to trial in the Senate, their entire case will be easily destroyed. ALSO, Mitch McConnell will be calling the shots. He will be able to call Hunter Biden to testify, Joe Biden as wall as Adam Schiff. There is no executive privilege for them. They'll have to testify.
Should be good fun and a comedy show when seeing how the Democrats handle things.Very much agree... But it remains good political feed to feed the flock. Sad they are using taxpayer's cash and wasting time. And you know what, they look so ridiculous.
Don't know much about the law, do you read.
1. An "attempted" crime doesn't need to have the act completed to still be a crime. Trump attempted bribery even though he failed to carry it out. That is illegal and impeachable.
2. Trump cannot change, delay, or other wise interfere with congressional authorized money - that is illegal.
With McConnell in charge, it is a given the Senate trial will be rigged in favor of TratitorTrump. Consequently, I seriously doubt that the truth will win out. But, I can always hope patriotic voters will take notice of the Republican dishonesty and vote them out of office.
What can Hunter testify to that changes the fact that Trump bribed Zelenskyy.?
What can Joe testify to that changes the fact that Trump bribed Zelenskyy?
What can Schiff testify to that changes the fact that Trump bribed Zelenskyy?
What can ANY of them testify to that changes the fact that Trump:
Obstructed Congress?
Obstructed Justice?
Abused his Power in so many ways?
Also, the Democrats will call REAL witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, McGann, several OMB staff, Giuliani, Lev Parmas, and Igor Fruman
They'll have to testify."The Ukrainians weren't even aware they were delayed.'
Are you sure about that Mike? There seems to be credible testimony, (evidence?), that says they were aware. Without backtracking to be sure, I think it was August when the first Ukraine asked about it.
Does that leave you with one fact that makes everything else irrelevant?
GAThe last testimony put the date at July 24 or 25.
Sharlee: The way I understand the impeachment process in the senate is this. The articles of impeachment from the house are submitted to the senate. The Chief Justice (Roberts) then presides over the trial as the judge. Both sides present their arguments and then a vote is taken. It has to be a super majority vote of 2/3 of the senate in order for Trump to be impeached. This is from Wikipedia:
"Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:
(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."
There is plenty of evidence Trump is guilty of all three of those offenses. However, the chances of getting a 2/3 senate vote are pretty slim against him. So you guys keeping posting those senseless memes to the point of diminishing return.I don't agree, all three would require evidence of motive. As of yet, I have seen nothing that would factually prove motive. It will be sort of their word against his. The president has many powers and the Constitution as written will protect his rights , the right to be heard and call witnesses. It all comes down to motive, and motive will be very hard to prove. The WH did go through the proper protocol, and Schiff actually called a witness to confirm they did. His official was not allowed in an open setting. The republicans requested she be called to be heard in an open sitting but the request was denied. I heard this on the last open hearing.
"A spokeswoman for OMB said the office followed standard protocol in ordering the delay.
"To be clear, there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld in order to conduct the policy review," said Rachel Semmel. "OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed."
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump … 019-11-25/
I would think the reasons for holding the funds would be important to add to why the President wanted the money held. This document will stand as a piece of actual hard evidence of his motive.I don't see why you need to prove a motive to prove a crime was committed. If someone shoots someone else, explaining why doesn't excuse them from having committed a the violent act.
Same in this case, Trump has tried to explain the hold on aid, even with testimony that noted that Ukraine had met benchmarks for anti-corruption that should have allowed that aid to have been given. Trump's reasoning in this is a lie and combined with his advisers clearly understanding that a White House meeting was tied to an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, is damning.Motive is the term used to explain why a person committed a crime...But motive usually isn’t a criminal element—the prosecution doesn’t have to prove the defendant had it.
Instead,
"prosecutors try to establish motive in order to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty."
Example: John and Sue have been happily married for 30 years. John is diagnosed with a terminal illness and is in constant pain. After living in agony for several months, he repeatedly asks Sue to kill him. After much deliberation, Sue shoots and kills John. Sue’s intent was to kill. Her motive was to stop her husband’s pain. She’s guilty of murder even though her motive may have been compassionate.
Example: Rob is on trial for theft by larceny. (See Theft & Robbery Laws.) The prosecution has to prove that he took someone else’s property while intending to permanently deprive the owner of it. Rob claims that he took Joe’s wallet so he could have it cleaned—then he was going to return it. In order to show that Rob intended to keep the wallet for his own purposes, the prosecution offers evidence that Rob has a drug habit that he’s had trouble financing.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia … fense.htmlTrumps motive were purely selfish in this case. Harm his political opponent and help Russia at the same time. And there's Lev and Igor, arranging for now resigned Rick Perry who was embroiled in the attempt to place campaign donors in lucrative positions in the Ukraine.
Pick one or more of these as a motive for holding up the much needed funds if you can't think of any.
I was referring to the three charges Peoplepower feels Trump could be impeached for.
(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."
1. Abusing his powers. One would have to prove he abused his power by asking a foreign nation to do him a "favor". By law, the president was within his right to ask a foreign country to help in an investigation of an American citizen. So, it would be up to Congress to prove he asked fro this favor to gain info on a Dem candidate. It would be up to Trump to prove he had another motive. The motive is key in this charge. Motive would not be important if the president did not have the right to ask for Zelinshy's help. But he did. His motive must show he was up to no good.
2.behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; DITO, same concept.
I assume PP was possibly referring to holding aid.
His July 25 call show concern over what other countries are
providing aid to Ukraine. Trump has been very vocal about aid to other countries. he could very well be motivated to hold funds due to hoping other counties would offer more in aid. Again Motive. He said, they say...
Quote from Trump/Zelinsky call --- Actual first-hand evidence of motive.
Trump -"The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine"
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
Once again there is no evidence of the president's motive. He is directly asking Zelinsky to do an investigation and to involve AG Barr. President Trump -" I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it." This indicates Trump was pursuing Zelinsky's follow up with Barr, and this indicates his motive was not meant to be a crime of any form. One certainly would not include the AG if he was looking to commit any form of crime or abuse his power. He was clearly wanted the AG to aid in the investigation.
He also makes the assertion that Zelinsky still has some of the same corrupt people that were around when illegalities were happening. President Trump- " I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people"
It is clear on the phone call Trump gives motive of why he wants the investigation. This is firsthand evidence that shows motive. This phone call tells me he was clearly disturbed about the 2016 election tampering as well as a concern for other Countries especially Germany not paying their fair share in aid to Ukraine. Not to mention his concern for Zelinsky still having possible corrupt holdovers from the last administration.
"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."
There is no evidence he sought to hide anything he said or persued in that phone call. The call also shows a good motive for holding the aid until he was sure of several things, corruption, and want to ascertain if other counties were paying their fair share. ActuallyTrump requested the numbers on what other countries were giving in aid to Ukraine for several years. He recieved the report, and within days released the funds.Trump didn't "hide" anything because he as a psychopath, he doesn't see what he is doing is wrong. A sociopath (which I don't think Trump is) kills because it is fun and it pleases him or her, they simply don't understand why it is wrong to murder. A psychopath, which Trump is according many mental health professionals, also feels no particular guilt about their actions so long as it benefits them personally. So why hide it?
In any case, until you understand that Trump's ONLY targets have to do with his reelection, you will keep making up excuses for him (even though he doesn't do it himself).Have you considered that Trump's ONLY targets have attacked him first? Or is something better left unsaid so that it is more acceptable to claim it is about the election?
What has that got to with anything??
Also, his fixation on a fictional, Russian-generated fabrication about some nefarious Ukrainian top-down plot to sway the 2016 election to Clinton did not "attack him".You guys are comical. You've decided that he attacked Biden, not because of perceived criminal actions, but because he wants an opponent out of the way. Now that may be true, but you have no reason to assume it is...outside of an intense desire to remove Trump from the next election. And you and your buddies consistently fail, somehow, to understand how that paints you and your stance of evil and criminality by Trump.
Think hard - you'll figure out what it has to do with things. If you can be honest with at least yourself, that is.YOU think hard. Why has Trump ONLY focused on election related material? Remember, he told Sondland that he doesn't give "a shit" about Ukrainian corruption, ONLY the Bidens.
I won't bother asking "Why is that?" because 1) you don't know and 2) you don't care.You are aware that asking questions does not indicate guilt? Only answers to questions, proven to be true and not supposition, are evidence of anything at all.
Another thread, but I commented on the methodology being used in this "investigation"...and was told I was a Putin lover, as if that had anything at all to do with anything that had been said. I've been told many times I'm defending Trump by questioning what is called "proof" but is simply assumptions. Now I'm "hopelessly brainwashed" because I question that same methodology.
Yes, it's comical.With you, time and time again, even when things are clearly proven, you cannot come to that conclusion. You are the eternal skeptic, even in the face of an overabundance of testimony, timelimes of actions to pressure Ukraine, and an illogical demand to announce the investigation.
Some healthy skepticism is fine, but when you cannot accept a conclusion based upon so much evidence, now you've just broken with reality.
And you're complaint about how you're being perceived did not address that one simple question I asked. Why was the announcement of an investigation even necessary?Ken: You want answers? Guilianni was sent to Ukraine to find corruption on Proshenko, the former president of the Ukraine who had long left the government. Guilianni was actually sent to the Ukraine to get rid of Marie Yovonavitch because she was not willing to play Trump's game of find dirt on the Biden's, and get Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike, which is supposed to contain Hillary's emails. It turns out CrowdStrike is a conspiracy that Trump believes in or doesn't exist and he uses it as a distraction to cover his tracks.
The approved security funding for the Ukraine was stopped by Trump because he was holding the funding hostage until Zelensky came through with the goods. But when the whistle blower released the transcript, Trump released the money to the Ukraine. He even wanted Zelensky to make an announcement on CNN that Zelensky found that the Biden's were corrupt.
Bolton quit because he was in the loop and did not want to be incriminated for what Trump was trying to do, not only in the Ukraine but also in Syria by pulling our troops out.
Trump only does what is good for Trump. Now he re-instated a Navy Seal who was going to be convicted by a military court. He said he did it to support the troops. Translation he did it to make himself look good to his base.
Anybody who is or was in the service knows that a military court is sacrosanct and is not to be messed with according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It is pounded in everybody's head starting in basic training. Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy was livid and tried to get Trump to reverse his decision, but Trump wouldn't do it so he fired him. Trump says he did it to show the troops he supports them.
That ishe how he thinks. Instead of realizing he was just supporting one Seal and upsetting the chain of command and messing with the order of discipline, he did it for the whole GD Military to make himself look good.
This is just one of example of how Trump's mind works. He simplifies everything to fit his own needs and then exaggerates how great he is, without realizing or caring what the consequences are. Now he has to find someone to replace the Secretary of the Navy. He will probably replace him with someone who is an amateur like his is, but will follow his orders..
I want a president I can be proud of. I can't be proud of this excuse of a leader who has lied and/ or misinformed over 10,000 times; who has divided our country into an us and them mentality by calling real news the fake news and the enemy of the people and colludes with Fox News and other right wing propaganda outlets; who's agenda is to isolate us from the rest of the world with his economic nationalism agenda, where we are paying for the tariffs he imposes on other countries; where he is breaking our long standing treaties and policies with other countries, just to get even with Obama for calling him out on the lying of the birther movement. Now Iran is firing up their centrifuges and Putin has taken over our military bases in Syria. I could go on and on as to why I'm not proud of Trump, but I'm sure you get the picture.So far there is just one thing that has been "clearly proven" - that Trump asked Ukraine to do an investigation. All the rest of it, specifically including that it was intended to remove from the 2020 election, is assumption and wishful thinking.
Now, you may think it is proven factual, but you would be wrong - that wishful thinking is not proof of anything but a tremendous desire to remove Trump from the 2020 election. Being unwilling, or unable, to distinguish between opinion and fact does not create factual evidence; just opinion.
The comedy, Wilderness, is you willful ignorance.
Are you aware that asking for an investigation of domestic political rivals and tying it to the delivery of an official act is called bribery and is impeachable? Smarten up.
Because you ignore the truth proves you are hopelessly brainwashed.
Comical will be listening to you try to explain why a public announcement of an investigation was even necessary? Couldn't they have done an investigation without announcing it? We'll wait for a logical answer to that one...
This is your opinion. There is no evidence of your claim that Trump is a sociopath. In fact, it is apparently due to his history in helping others he would not fit the profile of a sociopath.
"In any case, until you understand that Trump's ONLY targets have to do with his reelection, you will keep making up excuses for him (even though he doesn't do it himself)."
History would show any and all presidents that ran for reelection worked hard to win their second terms.
Please let me remind you of Obama's hot mike conversation to the Russian president... To me that was very condeming.Of course there is evidence of Trump being a sociopath. There are not only many so-called "professionals" that are more than willing to set aside any ethics they might have as well as their version of the Hippocratic oath and publicly state that they have determined, without any examination and based on his political "persona" shown publicly, that he is a sociopath. There are also millions of people that, without any training or knowledge (outside of what they read on the 'net), are willing to make the same statement. Lots and lots of evidence.
Shame on professionals for trying to protect us from a mentally ill President who has access to nuclear missles.
Before you spout off about something you know nothing about with "that are more than willing to set aside any ethics they might have as well as their version of the Hippocratic oath and publicly state that they have determined, " you need read their book because they explain clearly why they have a "duty as professionals to warn America about a President they know is dangerous"
As I told you many times before, they have decades of video, writings, speeches, and actions to analyze.For sure. And the Democrats in congress have a "duty" to conduct multiple open ended, years long "investigations" into anything they can use to defeat Trump in 2020.
All you have said is that those "professionals" have become politicians. Reasonable as they have set professional ethics aside in favor of promoting political goals.Multiple posts, and yet still no reply to the simple question about why the requirement for the public announcement by Ukraine of an investigation into Biden.
Sort of like your Republicans did. The difference, Trump has committed crimes, Clinton did not.
"All you have said is that those "professionals" have become politicians. " - LOL. No, Wilderness, they are patriotic Americans who actually care about this country.Once more, the same claim - that Trump is a criminal even after being cleared on the collusion claim.
Yes, I understand that they "care about their country"...because they agree with you on your political stance and are willing to make that opinion public. That does NOT make them "professionals"; it makes them politicians, just as I said. There are millions of people in this country that vehemently disagree with you, and them, in that Trump is destroying the country, that feel he is doing great good in his actions. It can be nothing but a political opinion, then, to claim the opposite and taking it into the world of professionalism does not change that it is a political opinion that they are trying to buttress with supposedly professional training (but with only observations of a faux public "face") - it doesn't work for me. I'm positive without a doubt that it works for you, but that's simply because it is what you want to hear.Again, a false statement. Trump was cleared of conspiracy, but had to commit obstruction of justice to reach that conclusion. There was plenty of collusion proven, however, including giving the campaign's internal polling data to the Kremlin. Aspiring to be like Trump with all these lies today, or what?
There you go making things up again, Wilderness; living in your fantasy world of alternative facts. But, for those who care so they don't believe your lie - the Mueller Report did not clear Trump of collusion. In Fact, it provided tons of examples of what we all understand to be collusion.
What the Mueller Report was not able to do was find enough evidence (meaning there WAS EVIDENCE) to support, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal conspiracy occurred. Now THAT is the truth, not your lie.
You are unbelievable, Wilderness. What makes them "professionals" is the years of training, education, and experience in evaluating people with mental health problems. What is your definition of "professional"? You?
I know they there are millions of people who disagree with me; somewhere south of 62,984,828 (I say south because Trump has lost votes not gained any since 2016). And that makes me sad to know there are that many people who are so gullible or are some combination of racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, narcissistic, etc that after 3 years of watching this bully, this liar, this traitor, this person willing to throw YOU under the bus if he feels like it, in action would still vote for him.
They say he has done great good. But I find it strange they can't point to one damn thing that originated with Trump. The so-called good they all point to is just a continuation of what Obama started and Trump didn't screw up - yet.
Even YOU won't name one original thing from Trump that was good for all of America and not some small part of if.
"This is your opinion. " - Actually, it isn't. It is the considered opinion of over 35 mental health professionals who are afraid for the well being of the United States. They wrote a book on it and are going to publish another shortly. Not that you would read it, but it is titled The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and is available on Amazon.
The psychologist, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals present tons of expert analysis and evidence of what they observe about Trump's abnormal behavior through his actions, writings, speeches, etc.
What history in helping others, lol. There is none.
Yes, history does show presidents run hard for re-election, but unlike Trump, they haven't broken the law in doing it. Why do you continue to excuse Trump's behavior?
I remember the "hot mike" conversation. What was illegal, or even inappropriate, about that? He said "he [Obama] would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues such as missile defense after the 2012 election." - Did he Trump (lie)? Did he promise something? Did he ask for something? What is your problem with that statement?
Then why doesn't Mulvaney answer the subpoena and clear this stuff up? This goes for Bolton and Pompeo as well. They're not remaining silent for nothing.
Show me the law where "motive" in an element of proof. If you can't, then you are wrong.
There are some crimes that require "intent", such as obstruction of justice.
Other crimes do not need "intent", just the simple act of doing it is enough such as bribery and obstruction of Congress.
Abuse of Power does not necessarily need "intent". For example, orchastrating a smear campaign against an Ambassador does not need "intent". It just needs evidence that he did it and there is plenty of that.
Also, no "intent" is necessary when violating 31 USC Section 1301 which "requires that funds appropriated by Congress be used only of the programs and purposes for which the appropriation was made." Trump delayed those funds without reason or for an illegal reason - that is a violation of Section 1301.
"To be clear, there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld in order to conduct the policy review," - YEAH right, then why do new leaks tell us Trump withheld funds first and searched for a reason later. They are Trumping (lying) to you Shar and you are buying it."Show me the law where "motive" in an element of proof. If you can't, then you are wrong.'
I don't want to insult anyone here. However, the Dem's entire case depends on motive? If you have been watching the open testimony, most ever question is motive related. This I all they have is to prove motive of,--- Motive to how he may have abused his power... The motive that he committed bribery.
There just is no evidence, they strive to push motive. Read the transcript it is one of the only evidence that does show Trump's motive. It gives a motive for the request, it gives a motive for holding aid, which was done before the call... Just not sure why you think the motive is not important. It's all Dems have to go on.RudyGuiliani in May: "I'm going to Ukraine to benefit my client."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/p … trump.html
Not to represent the US, for the benefit of his client.
Sharlee, perhaps you can answer this. Why was an announcement of an investigation into Biden something that was needed from Ukraine? Could they not have done an investigation and the reported on the results, should any wrongdoing have actually occurred? That goes right to intent.So Trump goes out and shoots somebody on 5th Ave (to use his example) but doesn't tell anybody why. Are you claiming he gets a pass? That there should be no investigation? That the video of the shooting shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't prove so-called motive?
Are you saying that the FBI (with Trump being the head of the country) can never look into crimes by anyone connected to his opposition? That all Dems (and independents) get a "get out of jail free" card because they oppose him and thus can do whatever they wish?
Ok, then why be surreptitious about the fact that you are holding back Congressional appropriated funds?
No, wilderness, why not simply provide his explanation for withholding funds to congress at the beginning?
So don't confuse the issue, it is not about investigating recipients of foreign aid, it is about being dishonest by withholding information that Congress had every right to informed of from the beginning.Sure he could look at crimes, but why not investigate without announcing it? Trump wanted the appearance of wrongdoing even if there was none.
Wilderness: "Are you saying that the FBI (with Trump being the head of the country) can never look into crimes by anyone connected to his opposition? That all Dems (and independents) get a "get out of jail free" card because they oppose him and thus can do whatever they wish?"
No, we are saying that Trump asked The President of the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's to prove they are corrupt, even though they have been proven of no wrong doing. And to make a public announcement to the world as such or he wasn't going to get the 400 million that was already appropriated by congress and the OMB. We are also saying that once the whistle blower released the transcript, he released the money.
By the way, I like how you use the ploy of "Are you saying..." to put words in people's mouths when you know full well what they are saying.
Sharlee: What do you call a president that has documented lies and/or misinformation for over 10,000 times in three years and is still continuing to lie today? Now he is even distancing himself from Guilianni and his henchmen.
What do you call a president who has documented knowledge of people and then has no knowledge of those people when he is under attack?
What do you call a president who has documented knowledge of requiring constant adulation from his supporters?
What do you call a president who has documented knowledge of inciting violence and hate in his rallies?
What do you call a president who has documented knowledge of firing almost all of his staff and cabinet members just because they don't agree with him?
What do you call a president who has documented knowledge of blaming others for his mistakes and then takes credit for fixing his own mistakes?He is the President who got a lot of help from Russian propaganda, a lot of help from Fox News propaganda and a lot of help from people who believed both.
And, based on the Mueller Report, I think the Russian propaganda was so effective that it swayed 80,000 votes out of millions in targeted states to vote for Trump or not vote for Hillary. No doubt in my mind.
"Russian propaganda"... Are you referring to the Steel dossier? I mean that was clearly Russian propaganda. Vile and rotten to the core. Did it help him? Yeah, it did, it showed many of us hat vile and rotten is, and who actually could be so rotten. That would be the "gal" that paid for it.
Just as this impeachment will ultimately do. Rotten = Dems in many minds at this point. You would think they would learn, that kind of politicking is looked down on by most.Not sure how you went from understanding that Trump clearly used his office for personal gain last week, to the Queen of all Democratic hatred this week. That was a pretty epic shift in personality in such a short time.
"Russian propaganda"... Are you referring to the Steel dossier? " - NO, Shar, he is referring to the successful #MurderingPutin led Russian effort to put their Manchurian Candidate (I guess he would properly be called the Siberian Candidate) in as President of the United States.
The Steele dossier, if you may remember, is the partially verified information document produced by a British spy-master. (You DO KNOW, don't you that the Republicans started paying for it)The ONLY states Trump is Certain to win are:
Idaho
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Kansas
Oklahoma
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Tennessee
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina
West Virginia
Each one of those have a net Trump approval rating of more than 5.
Texas is only 2 now when it use to be 21, why the large decline??
Nebraska is -4 now when it use to be 23, why the large decline??
Iowa is -12 now when it use to be 9, which the large decline??
Wisconsin is -17 now when it use to be 6, which the large decline??
Michigan is -13 now when it use to be 7, which the large decline??
Pennsylvania is -9 now when it use to be 10, which the large decline??
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Face it Shar, the worst thing other than the Civil War to hurt America in its history is going to lose. (BTW, 8 of the 14 states in Trump's column are former slave states, 7 who left the Union. Most of the rest weren't states during the Civil War. Doesn't that tell you something?)I predict you are going to be very disappointed on election night. I do give you credit for keeping to your beliefs
And I give you the same credit. Since, until the last two weeks of the election, I thought that Trump didn't have a chance, there is always the possibility of another miracle happening.
But then after Comey stupidly sabotaged Clinton (yes, I know he didn't mean to) and the effects of the yet to be discovered Russian propaganda campaign, I saw the polls tightening and began to worry. But I still believed strongly common sense would win out - it didn't.
I'll be watching the same polls this time around, but since NO state who voted Blue before will vote Red this time around, I will focus only on those where Russia put Trump over the top by 80,000 votes as well as those states who were Red but look very much like they will reject him now.
You'd already saw the Access Hollywood film, if that didn't tell you what a creep he was, then the Steele Dossier should have had no effect on you either.That would be true.
What is it that 61 out of 100 women know about Trump that scares the hell out of them, that the other 35 out of 100 women haven't figured out yet??? (I assume 4 out of 100 haven't made up their minds yet.)
Do that many women like to be kissed indiscriminately or get their pussy's grabbed by strangers who are :"stars"? Somehow I don't think so.
I saw the trailers to the new movie Bombshell about Fox News' sexual harassment of women. It looks great, especially since it is a true story.Shar doesn't believe in polls which go against her own opinion. I do believe she has stated something to that effect earlier on.
I call him the president that won and will win in 2020. arguing back and forth won't change those facts.
Sharlee: I'll say one thing. Trump was right when he said he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and no one would care as long as they are his supporters like you are. Him winning in 2020 is not a fact. It is wishful thinking on your part.
You and his supporters voted for him in 2016 and nothing that he has done or can do will allow you to see him for what he really is, an amateur politician, but a professional con man who does not follow the rules and creates chaos for the rule of law and the constitution. You are right about one more thing. He is definitely different than any other president in the history of this country.Yes he is very different, and what I see is a businessman that is very ruff around the edges doing a good job, and making it look easy. I think that's why so many dislike him, just can't admit the government has been floundering for many years due to politicians that are out of their depth.
All that aside, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.What you see is a FAILED businessmen man who has conned a lot of people, including you. He is the Madoff of the real estate world with a string of failed projects behind him. The ONLY think that has kept him in money is selling his name. As a real estate person, he is a flop. Six bankruptcies - only ONE bank will lend him money along with a bunch of Russian oligarchs (WHY, if he is so great?) - tons of stiffed contractors and others who worked for him.
Yep, I am sure he is the kind of many you want your son to use as a role model.
Now that most women have turned away from Trump (you are one of the few exceptions), he is not winning anything. Women are so pissed at Republicans right now, Republican Senators up for re-election will have problems.
I guess one could say it's the final count that matters. I predict he will win in 2020. How about you?
Can't win without women, and the vast majority of them hate him. You are in a distinct minority Shar.
I am a well-educated woman, as are my friends. One thing for sure we don't need polls or a news network to influence who we vote for. Just need to take into account the positive changes Trump has made, and the fact he keeps his promises. And he does his job even with all the crazy BS the Dem's dish up... As I said he has 2020 in the bag.
Didn't he promise to eliminate the deficit?
It's up 68%
Didn't he promise a new healthcare solution?
His plan was to eliminate the ACA with no solution to replace.
Didn't he promise infrastructure?
He cancelled the meeting to discuss it because those mean Democrats
criticized him.
Didn't he promise to win a trade war easily?
$29 billion in bailout money later, the agricultural industry is decimated
and individual households are paying $2,000 more per year for goods.
Didn't he promise that Mexico was going to build the wall?
He wants you, the taxpayer, to pay billions for a wall that is so effective that a $100 saw was able cut through it.
Didn't he promise to be too busy to golf?
$125 million of your taxpayer dollars later, with much of that going to his own businesses.
What we know is that he has broken many laws to get, and since being elected. We also know that the turnover in this administration is unseen as people come and go - with the most respected of those leaving, such as Mattis, clearly stating how unfit for office the man is.
What we widely suspect is that Trump's business interests dictate his foreign policies - such as protecting a murderer in Saudi Arabia or letting Turkey slaughter US allies in Syria.
No, Trump will not be re-elected. Places such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio have shown in recent elections that the Trump name is an anchor, not a strength."$29 billion in bailout money later, " should read "$29 billion in welfare money later, ", IMO
As did the departing Secretary of the Navy say how terrible Trump is for the military.
You forgot that Trump disrespects true American heroes like Sen McCain while pardoning war criminals. Must make you proud to be a Trump supporter.
I don't doubt that you and your friends are, but that doesn't stop you from being brainwashed. Look how many well-educated Germans were fooled by Hitler's populist rhetoric and followed him into Hell. Speaking of Hell, there are some in America who still believe in Hitler's ideas (and no, I don't think you are one). They just traded in their brown-shirts for red-hats.
Trump has made only negative changes unless you consider these as positive changes:
- Making a laughingstock out of America
- Making it so that no nation can ever again trust America's word (because people like you might elect another Trump)
- Turning our gov't into a third-world knock-off complete with corruption throughout his administration, including himself
- Giving huge tax breaks to his cronies and probably costing you money in the end.
- Doing no better than Obama with the stock market (meaning, in terms of real dollars, your 401k would be worth as much or less now than under Clinton
- Shaming America by putting thousands of kids in cages
- Turning America into a place people do not want to come.
- Bankrupting farmers
- Turning the Statue of Liberty on its head
- Bringing HATE and Racism into the forefront of American society
- Giving the Nazis, White Supremacists, and Alt-Right a national platform
- Turning the bully-pulpit into a pulpit for a Bully.
Are these the positive things you are so proud of Shar?
"No, we are saying that Trump asked The President of the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's to prove they are corrupt, even though they have been proven of no wrong doing."
Fascinating! Can you provide a link, please, to the investigation into the actions of Biden that clearly show no wrongdoing? Perhaps one of a year or two duration?If that is WIlderness's reasoning, then Trump ought to ask the Ukraine president to investigate his son Baron, it makes as much sense.
Same thing - Trump claims one thing but you aren't interested in evaluating or investigating his claim because it might prove true and thus absolve Trump.
For the life of me I can't understand what's so hard about that concept to grasp - the only conclusion I can come up with is that you do understand it, just don't want to do it. It isn't even something to discuss, except to make unsupported (and false) claims that it has already been done.Others, including the Republican Congress at the time, looked at the Bidens and found nothing wrong. Of course when I pointed this out before, you (or someone else) insinuated those Republicans were traitors because they didn't find anything wrong.
But you don't care about history or the truth, just supporting a criminal.
Dan cannot come up with a logical answer to why the announcement of an investigation was needed to get the White House meeting. He's been dodging that question all week and Mike's answer was some kind of gibberish.
Valeant: Maybe my reply to Wilderness looks like some kind of gibberish is because it's a two part reply. The first part is for Wilderness. The second part is for Sharlee. Sorry about that if it looks like gibberish.
By the way, I think your satire was hilarious and on point. You should think about submitting it to Saturday Night Live. They already have all the characters in place. It would be a friggin riot.What possible difference can it make? Are you operating under the assumption that if I, or anyone else, cannot give you answers to all the questions you propose, answers that you find acceptable, it means you get to make them up yourself, whatever fits with what you want to believe? I would highly disagree with that, for it is a concept deeply embedded in "guilty until proven innocent".
Like I said, Dan is struggling to come up with a logical answer. Instead, that was a piss-poor attempt at deflecting to a philosophical debate.
The question is simple. Why was an announcement necessary? To me, it proves motive, that this was about a smear. Corruption could have been investigated without the announcement. The announcement was key to the quid pro quo. That is unless you have some other logical explanation for it.Wilderness: Guilty until proven innocent, it seems is how these investigations work. Hillary was presumed guilty for three years under the GOP investigation of Benghazi and then they gave up and declared there was no wrong doing on her part. However, Trey Gowdy wanted to continue the investigations.
It's not a matter of making up answers to fit what a person believes. It is a matter of working with the facts to get to the truth. You have a president who lies every chance he gets. He wants his people to do the same thing or he will fire them or they quit on their own accord because they can't deal with all the lying and the consequences those lies may bring.LOL You and others determined from the first few seconds after hearing of it that the call to Ukraine was designed and intended to harm political rivals. Now you're asking questions, with the failure to answer to your satisfaction, as "evidence" of that same thing.
You and I both know that such questions are evidence of your own ignorance, nothing more. Just as claiming that firing an ambassador (without having the faintest indication as to the reason for it) does not indicate guilt of fixing an election. Yet here you are, making the same claim - "Well, I don't know why she was fired, so will assume it was because she wouldn't help fix the election.
Carry on - such assumptions are not something I will ever, for anyone, use to determine guilt - ignorance is just not a reason to make assumptions that fit with what I want. I leave that to you and other folks that simply do not care - just want Trump removed from any possibility of winning the 2020 election. Not even my feeling that there was that political advantage in the back of his mind at a minimum is a reason to unilaterally declare it to be true."LOL You and others determined from the first few seconds after hearing of it that the call to Ukraine was designed and intended to harm political rivals." - BECAUSE it was a crime on the face of it.
When I see someone shoot somebody on 5th with no sign of self-defense, I assume at a minimum it is involuntary manslaughter.- a crime. What Trump said on that call is as clear as that.And when they say it was self defense, do you look for that? Do you try and ascertain if it actually was? Or do you just continue to claim manslaughter because you don't like the person?
No one has yet checked to see if Biden's actions then (or any other time) were legal - they, and you, just assume they were because you want Trump gone. And that's the problem with the whole picture. As I said, within seconds of hearing of Trump's call the assumption is that it was illegal without ever making any effort at all to determine if he actually had cause to make the request.'No one has yet checked...'
Odd, since the action had the bipartisan support of Congress.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/ … an-johnson
Are those eight Congressmen being investigated too? No, you say? Why not? Because they are not the frontrunner for the 2020 election, that's why.
Try another false narrative, please. This one sucks.Read what I wrote Wilderness and then try to comment with something that makes sense.
Guilty until proven innocent has relevance only in a court room. This forum is not a court room. The investigation was not a court room. Do you think the police think everybody they are investigating is innocent? Do you think that the suspect is invited by the police to each interview they hold with witnesses? Boy you really do live in an alternate reality.
I believe that's twice someone has commented on that post. And neither one answered it or addressed the obvious question of Trump requesting legal action against an opponent.
Actually other have addressed what you wrote, to me what you wrote made no sense at all.
So asking for an investigation into his political rival isn't a motive?
No Randy it is not. Asking for the investigation had a motive bbhind the request. The point is we do not know his motive. And the Impeachment inquiry has notgiven way to an actual motive, only inuindo of what the Dems hope they can prove. So far no cigar... Just no evidence. Plus one only ha to red the transcript of the call and can see several possible motives. One Trump may have stopped funds do to wanting more evidence on the document he requested... To have numbers n what other countries were giving in aid to Ukraine. he has an actual document, that's evidence. He also brought up Ukraine's corruption and reminded Zelinsky he had holdovers from a corrupt administration. That's one again factual evidence. No Randy just asking for something does not show motive, unless as in that call his motive was somewhat clear. Where it actually was...
Actually Shar, those reasons came up LONG AFTER Trump put a hold on the aid. What professionals were telling him is what he had done is illegal, since he didn't notify Congress. He violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974; an Act that was passed specifally to stop Presidents from doing exactly what Trump did. Since Trump willfully broke that law to, it is impeachable.
So you will have to try again.So why didn't he investigate in private, instead of having the Ukraine president announce it on CNN?
Agreed. What POSSIBLE motivation (which Shar is so concerned about) could Trump have in forcing Zelenskyy to go on TV and announce he is investigating Joe (his main political opponent) and Hunter Biden???
Why, as testimony as shown, did Trump not care about whether they were actually investigated or not???? Why only the Announcement, Shar, if not to hurt Biden. Use the brain that God gave you to think this through. Turn off Fox, turn off Limbaugh, shun Hannity and all other far right-wing media. If you can't go cold-turkey, then switch to Drudge who has reportedly broken away from Trump's dark spell.
I am guessing that is Trump in the fog, he is the one that hates.
And once again, Read is projecting. He knows he is what he is projecting on liberals in order to make himself feel better.
Having said that, he got one thing right - we are fun (while conservatives are scary)
"No, Obama didn't fire all of Bush's politically-appointed ambassadors"
https://www.politifact.com/north-caroli … -appointe/Why do you Trump (lie) so much 'O', unless you really are a Russian troll.
https://www.politifact.com/north-caroli … -appointe/
ALSO - All political appointees submit their resignations when a new president comes in. Obama kept two of those for a while.
ALSO - Obama didn't fire any foreign service officers when he took over.
ALSO - Obama wouldn't have smeared anybody he did fire, while Trump takes pleasure in it.
State Department Releases Detailed Accounts Of Biden-Ukraine Corruption
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … corruptionLOLOLOL, did you read your own conspiracy theory source??? This sort of stands out.
"they completely ignore interview notes containing detailed allegations by former Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin - who Joe Biden had fired, as well as his successor, prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko - who "believes Mr. Viktor Shokin the former Prosecutor General is honest." "
So, let's see what we have.
Trump (and I presume you) take the word of Putin over that of America's intelligence community regarding the Russian attack on our election system.
Now you take the word of a corrupt and fired (which Biden and Obama and a bunch of Western actors had a lot to do with) prosecutor Shokin over that of our American VP, Fiona Hill, and other respectable people who tell us convincingly that nothing wrong, or even unethical, was done.
You also take the word of another corrupt prosecutor who was fired who everybody knows he made those accusations and everybody but you know retracted those accusations.
So why are you again toeing the Russian propaganda line??blueheron and others: This is what I mean by confirmation bias. You find a website that has what you are looking for. You read the article and believe it. It confirms your bias. You never bother to check the validity of the site or whether it is fake or real.
It turns out the site you referenced is owned by Bulgarians. Please read the entire site that I have referenced below. They have Russian sounding last names. It wouldn't surprise me if they worked for the Russians. Next time, please do the research and analysis before you buy into this real fake news propaganda.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/Now, let's take apart this conspiracy theory source of yours.
""He [Shokin] was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April of 2016, when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States." it says. - FALSE or a Trump (lie)
Shokin was removed by the Ukrainian parliament, not Biden. Yes, Biden followed U.S. policy and pressured Ukrainian to fire a corrupt prosecutor. BUT ALSO, other nations and organizations pressured Ukraine as well. The combined pressure led to Shokin's firing.
""Mr Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointments were made in 2014 as follows:
1. Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
2. Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
3. Alesksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
4. Devon Archer roomate to the Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
So, let's see here, Hunter was joined by the former President of Poland and an ex-anti-terrorist CIA officer - BOY that is nefarious company. Now did they pick Hunter because his dad was VP, probably. But so what? Companies do it all the time, especially American companies. Are you against the free market?
Shokin said "There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received." - this was thrown out there by the corrupt Shokin with no context, so the presumption must be there was nothing to report on Hunter.
""President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko [who Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees] told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in US aid to Ukraine." - Poroshenko denies this. Also, there was no active investigation on Burisma or Biden at this time and apparently nothing planned.
What the article says about Lutsenko is mute because Lutsenko later took back his claims about the Bidens.
Boy are you Dumb, 'O' which your nonsense meme proves.
O: You just don't get it do you? The difference with Trump's quid pro quo is that he did it for personal gain. He wanted the President of the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's for interfering in his 2016 election, even though he won; to investigate a conspiracy theory about a server that is supposed to be in the Ukraine with Hillary's email; and to give him an edge against his rival Joe Biden in the 2020 elections.
So your memes don't even describe reality. But keep them coming so that we can educate you."Trump's quid pro quo is that he did it for personal gain. He wanted the President of the Ukraine to investigate the Biden's for interfering in his 2016 election, even though he won"
Here is where your speculation falls a part.
1. Ukraine got the funding.
2. No investigation was started on Biden.
Again, you can't get past those two facts. Those two facts eliminate any quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, etc.
Unlike Biden, who DID have a quid pro quo, bribery and/or extortion. He DID withhold funds until he got what he wanted. So, with that level of corruption, it makes sense to investigate Biden. If he wasn't corrupt, there would be no issue.You keep telling yourself those Trumps (lies). Please read the law. When you do you will find that
Offering to do an official act for personal gain is Bribery. That is exactly what Trump did no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.
I'll join GA's campaign against the "whataboutism" your side engages in. Who cares about what Biden, either one, did or did not do years ago?? It has NO bearing on what Trump did this year. You can try to act like Joseph Goebbels all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Trump illegally bribed Zelenskyy."Offering to do an official act for personal gain is Bribery"
This only exists in your imagination. I've read the transcript. This is the reason support for the impeachment is plummeting...especially among independents.
Biden did what the left is accusing President Donald Trump of doing. So, if you want to punish the president, you should want to punish Biden. It's called equal application of the law.
As someone on the left, this and reality are concepts that are obviously beyond you.You only using the transcript as the only evidence is why we think your argument holds no water.
As for Biden, what proof do you have exactly of any wrongdoing? Does the testimony of George Kent, the anti-corruption specialist for our country overseeing Ukraine, stating that he could not find any factual basis for those allegations mean nothing? He must be the leader of that deep state working against you. Or are you so attached to the John Solomon based theme, the one where he used Kilimnik as one of his sources, you know, that Kilimnik with ties to Russian intelligence, that you fall in line with unverified conspiracy theories promoted by our enemies?
Talk about being separated from reality..Here is a video of biden doing what the left is accusing President Donald Trump of doing. This IS quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, etc. It's pretty good evidence coming from the source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSwIt is only the same if you believe the fabrication that Biden was not acting for US interests, that an investigation into the Burisma CEO, a former minister of the country, had something to do with Biden's son who did not even work for the company when any allegations of wrongdoing were made. That's the part that leads most experts, including Kent, Bill Taylor, and even Volker, to state that this line of thought is merely a conspiracy theory.
Using approved aid is not even the same as loan guarantees either, but that's a separate argument.
Maybe you could try and answer something I seemed to have stumped Dan with. Why was a public announcement of an investigation even necessary? Couldn't the US have gone through regular channels to do an investigation? Couldn't they have done one without an announcement? That is what makes this crystal clear that it was for the personal benefit of Trump.
Not to mention you have Guiliani admitting to the NYTimes that he went to Ukraine to pursue investigations for the 'benefit of my client.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/p … trump.html"Biden's son who did not even work for the company when any allegations of wrongdoing were made."
WRONG
Hunter Biden started being on the board of Burisma 2014.
April 2014 – Hunter Biden joins Ukrainian firm Burisma
Joe Biden’s younger son, Hunter Biden, joins the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest private oil and gas extracting company in Ukraine, controlled by founder Mykola Zlochevskiy, who had served as a Cabinet minister under former pro-Russian Presidents Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovych. Both administrations had been suspected of corruption, and once they were ousted, successor administrations pledging reforms targeted previous officials, including Zlochevskiy, for investigation. Allegations against Zlochevskiy center on the funding schemes he used to form the company in 2002. But cases against him stall in each instance.
Biden made his statement in 2018.
"Biden later boasts about the pressure he exerted on Ukraine during that time to address corruption. In a Jan. 23, 2018, Q&A following a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, Biden touts his tough stance with Ukraine in 2016. He says he told Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin. "
"Why was a public announcement of an investigation even necessary? "
If the Democrats had not gone down the impeachment road, I doubt anyone would have heard of any of this.
I don't think you fully comprehend the connotation and denotation of he phrase "crystal clear."
Here is the timeline.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time … rainegate/"Biden's son who did not even work for the company when any allegations of wrongdoing were made."
'WRONG'
Ummm....you sure? Please get better sources.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1WC1LV
So you're blaming the impeachment for Trump's administration pressing Ukraine for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden two months earlier? Talk about not understanding timelines.The bottom line is Hunter Biden DID work for Burisma when his father ordered a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. He did nothing for $50,000 a month paycheck except have a father who is a vice president in the United States.
Burisma has been a focus of corruption investigation for years.
Circumstantial evidence would make a person believe Joe Biden was motivated to fire a prosecutor who was working on an investigation in the company his son was getting $50,000 a month from and doing nothing.
So, did Joe Biden act in personal interest to protect his son's monthly income from a corrupt company? Looks that way.
So, if the impeachment goes on trial in the Senate they can call Hunter Biden as well as Joe Biden, so we'll find out.Circumstantial evidence is what we're going by now? Now if you had video of Biden saying he fired the prosecutor because he was investigating his son, that might be some actual evidence. What we actually have is a congressional committee with multiple GOP members that signed off on sending Biden there to have Shokin removed. My, how did you ever forget to mention that?
Right now, all you have is coincidence based on a false premise that Shokin was investigating the Burisma founder.Truth Matters Mike!
"He did nothing for $50,000 a month paycheck except have a father who is a vice president in the United States." - HOW DO you know Mike, were you his boss?
"Burisma has been a focus of corruption investigation for years. " - ACTUALLY, THEY haven't been, The founder of Burisma, but not the company, have been under investigation for years.
"So, did Joe Biden act in personal interest to protect his son's monthly income from a corrupt company? Looks that way." - ACTUALLY, NO it doesn't. There isn't one iota of information out their to suggest impropriety except what you and your side make up.
There IS lots of evidence to suggest otherwise, however, mainly the fact there was a host of gov't entities that were pressuring Ukraine to dump a corrupt prosecutor. Are you trying to tell me that all of these entities were conspiring with Biden to help his son out. Come to think of it, you probably are. SAD.
When they call the Bidens, what do you think they will find out that is pertinent to the Crimes Trump has committed??
Read the statute Here, I will help you:
"The federal bribery statute requires the government to prove that the defendants acted with corrupt intent to engage in a quid pro quo, that is, “a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” United States v. ... United States, 465 U.S. 482, 496 (1984)"
Of course I suspect you will say the official statute is unconstitutional or something.
No, you did not read the transcript. You might have read the summary of the call, but you didn't read any transcript. I read the summary as well. The difference is I read ALL of the summary and didn't leave out any words like you and Ken are.
Even if you are correct, which you are not, about Biden - WHO CARES. It is Trump's illegal acts that matter. Your "whataboutism" will get you nowhere.
And the House will get to hear from McGahn. Another legal blow to the lawless Trump administration. Bring on the Obstruction of Justice charges! And that should also free up Bolton to testify. They will likely prove Trump's crimes, and then the GOP will claim it's not enough to impeach.
The SCOTUS just stopped the attempt to get Donnie's financial records.....for now. Apparently they need extra time to study the case.
Apparently there was no dissent. I wasn't surprised since stays are often issued when irreparable harm will occur, as it would in this case. Having the Court actually hear this case will surprise me more than Trump winning.
"No more than when I ask a favor of someone I've recently met."
I do love how Ken can leave out some part of the description to make this an equivalent. It should read something more like, 'No more than when I ask a favor of someone I've recently met who's getting their butt kicked by someone twice their size as I sit back and keep a bat to myself, even though that bat could help them stave off that butt kicking. A bat that my friends said I should provide.'
That kind of selectivity is why Ken is all in on the Trump cult.
Related Discussions
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 110
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 639
Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
- 117
Trump Tribunals: Predict An Impeachment Article / Indictment Charge
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
There is no other acceptable choice and or remedy other than his resignation which would conceivably still lead to immediate criminal indictment given the trove of damning evidence which currently exists: The political END must be near for this most absurdly unqualified and mentally shackled...
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...