Speaker of the House Pelosi spoke to reporters today and was posed with this question, “Why would the public not think that the House is dead set on a course to impeach the president…?”
“It’s called an impeachment inquiry and if the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President that means if you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known,” Pelosi said.
The burden is actually on the prosecution to prove that President Trump committed a crime, so why is the person who is third in line to run America speaking just the opposite?
The transcript has already been released......
Only a partial transcript was released. Trump refuses to release the full version.
A transcript with ... means parts were taken out.
Nor is it a verbatim recording of the call but a collection of written notes approved by Trump officials.
and he released the 1st call transcript this morning
That call is not the one related to the impeachment inquiry.
He's just trying to trick people into thinking it's the one that matters.
Promisem, they really tickle me with their logicless logic.Smoke screen! Anyone who watched the Yovanovitch testimony today knows she has Trump by the shorthairs!
No one likes to admit when they are wrong, including myself. But some people will go to amazing lengths to avoid admitting it.
I like his response to harassing her on Twitter: "I have a right to free speech!"
Of course he does, who can stop him? LoL!
And yet he seems baffled by all of the trouble he gets himself into.
I'm afraid, were I so hog tied by an unfair process that ensured no defense for me within that process I'd be running my mouth to anyone who'd listen, also.
Glad you find that funny. That's the difference between you and me. Smear campaigns are beneath me and I will fight back when attacked.
Well, you have nothing to fight back with. If you're defending the cretin, that is.
Yes. Please ignore all precedent of innocent until proven guilty, the right to a defense, the right to face your accuser. Bipartisan interrogation and the ability to call witnesses either side feel are pertinent.
I hope this effort fails miserably. Not because I like Trump but because if the democrats succeed that won't be the end of such behavior. I'll defend the left if the right reciprocates in the future. But I'll blame people such as yourself for supporting the House in such an endeavor in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned there's already enough rope for Trump to hang himself, LTL. His tweeting the witness intimidation during the interview with the ambassador only adds icing on the cake.
But never fear, more proof of his ill thought out moves in the Ukraine will come to light shortly. Then you and others will need to come up with some more weak excuses for the cretin.
"...innocent until proven guilty.. "
Please point out where Pelosi said Trump is not presumed innocent. Her exact words were:
"All this milieu is the seeking of the truth. It's called an inquiry. And if the president has something that is exculpatory [looks to camera] - Mr. President that means you have anything that shows your innocence - [back to reporter] then he should make that known".
Being presumed innocent and having evidence that clearly shows you are innocent, are two different things. Are you suggesting that if Trump has evidence that shows he is innocent, he should not make the committees conducting the impeachment inquiry aware of it?
If that's not what you're suggesting, then exactly what part of Pelosi's statement are you saying is incorrect?
Do you actually believe that if there are witnesses proving innocence they would be allowed to testify? Her actions speak much louder than her sauve words do.
The point of this "inquiry" is not to find truth, it is to convince the public of guilt.
"Do you actually believe that if there are witnesses proving innocence they would be allowed to testify?"
Please point to one example where a witness with evidence that categorically shows Trump is innocent of the allegations made against him, has been blocked from giving their evidence.
"The point of this "inquiry" is not to find truth, it is to convince the public of guilt."
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In my opinion, telling Trump to make the inquiry aware of any evidence that shows his innocence is good advice. Are you suggesting he shouldn't do that? If so, that doesn't sound like a sensible course of action.
Please point to one witness that showed innocence with the same degree of guilt being provided. That being an assumption based on circumstantial evidence. If it is truth being sought, then there are certainly people out there that find he did nothing wrong - why aren't they testifying? They have as much to say as the ambassador did, after all!
Trump show evidence of innocence? He can't, for they will not allow Republicans to call witnesses at will. Or ask questions at will, or even ask for a point of order. Which is why I said what I did.
Oh my, twixt' one and twixt' two. What to do, what to do?
I agree with you Don, I think if there were exculpatory witnesses they would have the opportunity to be presented. That they haven't been presented, ( and I would struggle to accept a defense they aren't permitted), seems telling to me.
But I also agree with Wilderness. These public hearings are a show for the public. (in my opinion , of course)
"These public hearings are a show for the public."
I think that is the nature of impeachments. As you know, impeachment was intended by the founders to address the unique nature of "violations" by "public men". When discussing whether impeachment of a president should be included in the Constitution, Franklin argued that impeachment is better than assassination!
"Dr. Franklin was for retaining the clause [on impeachment], as favorable to the executive. History furnishes one example only of a first magistrate being formally brought to public justice. Every body cried out against this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this, in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination, in which he was not only deprived of his life, but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way, therefore, to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the executive, where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal, where he should be unjustly accused."
(Benjamin Franklin, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787)
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farr … 1787-vol-2
So the impeachment process is, by design, a political process, and inherent in that process is the fact that it was also designed to ensure not only that justice is done, even in relation to the highest offices in the land, but (perhaps more importantly relative to Franklin's point) that justice is seen to be done in relation to the highest offices in the land.
So I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I do think that the "show" part of an impeachment, is inherent within the process itself. There is a big difference though between impeachment fulfilling its role as a very public administration of justice, and impeachment being based solely on partisanship rather than evidence, which is what I think wilderness was implying.
Wilderness did not intend to imply that (that it is solely partisanship and politics rather than evidence), he meant to come right out and say it.
When some 400+ lawyers sit in a room listening to "evidence" and every one of the Democrat persuasion thinks it's proof of criminality and every one of the Republican persuasion thinks it is not it says very clearly that it is not about evidence at all, but pure partisan politics without regard to truth. When every question I hear asked is clearly leading to a pre-determined answer and includes a short political speech it isn't about evidence. When the entire case is based on opinion of disgruntled employees rather than fact it isn't about evidence or fact; it's about partisan politics and fixing the next election. When those that would deny the impeachment are not allowed to call witnesses or even asked questions without them being OK'd by those wishing impeachment it isn't about evidence and truth; it's about partisan politics and swaying the next election. It's about one party playing games with the office of the Presidency of the United States and the will of the electorate.
That's the opinion of Wilderness; not a single Democrat is interested in true evidence and fact; the only thing of interest is partisan politics and keeping the president out of the next election by any means possible. Ironically, pretty much the same thing this impeachment is about (taking steps to fix the election), with the only difference that impeachment is legal, if definitely on the shady and unethical side of the line, while (the assumed but unproven) bribing of foreign officials is not.
It is amazing and terribly, terribly sad that you can witness GOP leaders not only repeat a conspiracy theory created by Russians but also spend taxpayer funds to pursue it, and you zero in on Democrats as "not interested in true evidence fact."
You believe Putin over our own intelligence professionals.
Terribly, terribly sad.
What's terribly, terribly sad is that people, as shown here, draw completely unfounded conclusions from statements about completely unrelated things.
As far as thinking Russians intended to split our country with their faux FB posts - that comes from OUR intelligence professionals and from theorizing by our own people. Perhaps you should read a little more rather than searching for opportunities to put words in other people's mouths that they never uttered. And I haven't a clue about what Putin did, or did not, say was the reason that Russia made those posts. Nor do I think you do, either, for he has consistently denied the obvious fact that Russians placed the posts.
Even more sad, is that people cannot understand the timing of that interference coincided with the access hollywood tape's release that would have ended Trump's campaign had there been no e-mail leak to offset it.
I have done plenty of research on the topic. They didn't intend to split the country, but to elect someone friendly to their country as opposed to someone who supported the Magnitsky Act and the monetary restrictions that accompanied it. When that Trump Tower meeting took place, the Russian adoptions discussed were sanctions on American families Russia implemented in reprisal to Magnitsky. What they were discussing in that meeting was the Magnitsky Act. A quid pro quo could not be proved, but certainly an exchange was being discussed based upon the confirmed reporting of the topics of that meeting.
I think your comment is an example of the point Wilderness was making.
I did not read his comment as denying the appearance of the evidence provided, but as addressing the motivation and process of its provision. And I certainly didn't read any Russia or Putin in his comment.
Whether Pres. Trump is guilty or not has become almost beside the point, and by my perspective, has been since the beginning.
I won't go as far as he did with the "disgruntled employees" part, or the rebuttal witness part, (I think that is for the Senate step in the process), but I do agree with most of the rest of his comment.
I think these hearings are just a part of the Democrats' Get Trump effort. That they have finally found something that sticks, this time, seems overshadowed by their motivation.
I am not defending Pres. Trump. I think he is guilty as accused. What I am doing is agreeing with Wilderness that this has been an orchestrated political manhunt. And even though I think it is right that the Democrats proceeded, in this instance, their motivation and prior efforts taint the legitimacy of their actions.
Think of all those old cliches': Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while, even a broken clock is right twice a day, etc. etc. That is how I see this Democrat effort. They finally threw enough spaghetti until one strand stuck.
If he's guilty as accused does it really matter if it's an an orchestrated political manhunt? I mean, let's say, Trump is doing all sorts of illegal things, and everyone in Washington knows it, they just need the solid evidence to get him. You can call it political, which it is to an extent, how could it not be? But, how can we say that they shouldn't be going after someone whom they feel is breaking laws like he is a Mafia Don?
We all know politicians can act in criminal ways, but I think Trump is a criminal who got into politics.Why not catch him?
Plus, most of us know, Trump was not cleared of anything in the Mueller investigation, and may very well be prosecuted for some of that after he's no longer President...especially with obstruction. So, yes, the Dems can appear a bit outlandish, but look at the monstrosity who is our "leader!"
Hi hard sun. I do think the Democrats should have proceeded as they have over these Ukraine charges. And I do think Pres. Trump should be held accountable. And I do think the process has proceeded as it should have to this point. I don't agree with all the cries about rebuttal witnesses and politically directed questions because that is just how I see the process designed. Of course, the party in power will control this stage of the game.
I think it is entirely reasonable to look at it as you do, but . . .
This has been the Democrat mantra from day 1. To my mind, their previous efforts and declared motivations have tainted their success in this case. So yes, it does matter if it is an orchestrated effort. At least for me.
And judging from the media's presentation of public sentiment, it matters to others also, or the public approval for the impeachment would be much higher than it is. I don't know, but if I ask maybe someone will check it out; What was the public sentiment for Nixon or Clinton's impeachment at this stage of the process?
Trump.is a criminal who became president and counties to commit actions ranging from unethical to illegal. The Democrats' reaction to that, as well as the reaction of career law enforcement and intelligence professionals who deem his actions to be unacceptable for a president, is exactly as it should be. The Republican reaction, which is to defend the criminal behavior no matter what it takes, including espousing Russian-originated conspiracy theories and smearing the reputations of diplomatic and intelligence professionals, is an abomination.
Sheesh. People have lost their minds. And seem to have forgotten what is right and what is wrong.
Uh oh. I am in trouble now. I can't disagree with you PrettyPanther. ;-)
Except that I won't call Pres. Trump a criminal yet. And I admit that I struggle to word my comments so that I can defend myself from being one of those folks that "seem to have forgotten what is right and what is wrong."
I believe that many of the Democrats' actions have been purely political, (wrong), but that does not mean that I believe that Pres. Trump's actions have been all right.
I have another TV watch suggestion for you. Madam Secratary. It is a weekly show that mirrors our current political situation, except that, (by my view), the main characters always act with character and integrity.
For instance, this new season is mirroring the Trump accusations and impeachment hearings - except that the president, (Madam President), is responding with truth, transparency, and integrity. And the protagonists are Republicans instead of Democrats, (but they are just as mean, nasty, and hyperbolic).
Do me the favor of checking it out and getting back to me. I think you will see the parallels and love the show. I know I anxiously await every Sunday to see the next episode.
Hey GA. First, since you asked, and I was interested, a very quick search yields some relevant info as far as the Clinton impeachment.
"In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 to 73 percent, "
"That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had."
"Only 30 percent want Clinton to resign; only 29 percent want the Senate to convict Clinton and remove him from office." https://www.cnn/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199 … ment.poll/
Now, Trump has never and will never, poll that high. And, as far as whether he should be impeached and removed from office, from what I've seen polls run around 50% consistently, give or take a few . I just read a poll that said 18% of R's support Trump's removal. Unless that number runs higher, Senate R's will never convict. Some think swing voters will make a difference come election time. I don't think we truly have a significant amount of those when it comes to Trump.
"This has been the Democrat mantra from day 1. To my mind, their previous efforts and declared motivations have tainted their success in this case. So yes, it does matter if it is an orchestrated effort. At least for me."
Back to the above. It could be argued that the R's attempted to do the same thing against Obama. I'm sure you remember McConnell's famous make Obama a one term President line. Now, IMO, if Obama were as corrupt and disrespectful as Trump, there would have been impeachment hearings when the R's took the House. And, to me, here's the most relevant point: While Obama had ardent supporters, if he did the type of things Trump is doing, things exposed in the impeachment hearings among other things like emoluments violations, etc., then I firmly think Obama would have lost the support of a ton more of his supporters than Trump has. That says something.
At any rate, personally, I cannot reconcile stating that the Dems "should have proceeded as they have over these Ukraine charges" and then not at least supporting the impeachment hearings. But, I do agree with what I think you're stating: In the realm of public sentiment, it's clear that the previous efforts have hurt the Dems here.
The sad thing is that the Mueller report was definitely not a bust as far as exposing Trump. The problem came with the media hammering away too much at the things that the report didn't come up with solid evidence for. The media, and some Dems, set the bar too high.
Damn good comment hard sun. No need wasting time highlighting the points I agree with. I think it is much easier to just point to your closing paragraph as the summation I would have made.
As a side note; your Clinton approval rating info fits with my recollection, but I was too lazy to confirm it first. I was not a supporter of the Clinton impeachment effort. Thanks.
And to think, at one time we came to an agreement on pretty much nothing here. Now it may be abut 50/50. Though I hate to admit it, a bit of that is due to me simply slowing down. At times, what I initially think you're stating, is not quite what you're truly stating. As you say, I'm sure there will be something to disagree on again soon.
You are right hard sun, it does not matter to me if the "crime" finally uncovered was just the last in a long string of charges, it is still a wrong-doing.
My point was to the effect of the Democrats' long hunt for that "crime" on the views of average folks like myself. Maybe it is something like the Capone tax conviction. They couldn't nail him on his real crimes, but at least they got him on something.
Speaking only for myself, the Democrats' actions, from Day 1, have so tainted theses final results that it is almost, (not really, but almost), like the crime committed isn't as bad as the crime of the pursuit.
Here's a different way of looking at it, GA.
The Russia investigation was an investigation to look into the depth of the interference of our 2016 election by a hostile foreign government. That attack was focused against one political party (the hack) and provided assistance (the release of e-mails at opportune times) to another.
The example I like to use is if someone robbed a bank, and then gave the money to another person, would the person who received the money be investigated for a connection to the robber? I believe they would, it's just common sense.
In the course of that investigation, if the person who received the money gave untruthful answers to questions, found a way to fire the lead prosecutor, and tried to get his replacement removed as well, that would constitute obstruction of justice, undoubtedly.
What you claim as a 'orchestrated political manhunt' could have easily been avoided if Trump didn't make the Russia investigation about himself. It made him look guilty, and then he committed actual crimes of obstruction of justice. And what he ended up doing was also protecting that hostile foreign government that attacked us.
Why people who defend Trump cannot believe that we should understand the depth of that attack and whether the person we elected was compromised is beyond reasoning. It's in our national security interests to ensure the election was legitimate and the leader of our country is not a pawn for another country.
Based on Trump's obstruction, those questions still remain. And I've voiced my hope that those charges are included in the upcoming articles of impeachment.
What was the outcome of Trump escaping accountability after asking Russia to interfere in the 2016 election? He solicits a different foreign government for help in the 2020 election. It's like he read his escape as a green light to commit the same action again to help him win. Sorry, but that's not a political manhunt, it's Trump giving the country a do-over, but with the House getting to investigate instead of someone from the GOP who decided to hide behind legalese to avoid coming to a conclusion on the criminality.
Valeant, you are really pressing my ability here. How to be clear about one point without anyone one of an opposing view to surmise that I am saying something I am not.
For clarity let me first say that I believe the 2016 Russian election interference was more about promoting division than getting Trump elected. I believe this is not the Russians' first election interference attempt, and it won't be their last. So when I hear all the clatter about the Russians interfering to get Trump elected, I translate that to simply Russian interference efforts - not Russian Trump interference efforts.
My bottom line is that I don't believe that the Russians' main interference efforts were to get Trump elected. I believe their efforts were for the division of our nation's citizens.
So, to the point of "Russian collusion," I am not a devotee. But, I think your point about Pres. Trump making the investigation all about him is a valid one.
Whether Trump is purposely protecting Russia's interest is, for me, a toss-up, at the moment. Unfortunately, I believe many of his actions have fallen in the lap of the Russians like mana from heaven, but whether it was by design or ignorance is not a settled point in my mind.
And finally, regarding your "green light" thought, I think you may be right.
You triggered a train of thought wilderness.
It's not about "criminality" because this is not a criminal proceeding. A point I've made several times, but which bears repeating. The nature of an impeachment is fundamentally different to the nature of a criminal proceeding or a court trial. Impeachments are a hybrid of political and legal processes, but leans more towards the political. That is by design, not a fault.
I won't do a blow by blow account of the evidence, which has been laid out in several threads already, including this one. But I will posit how impeachment differs in ways relevant to the points you're making.
Unlike court proceedings, there's no standard of proof. That alone invites the possibility that the same evidence will evince different conclusions, depending on the recipient. Another difference is the fact that even though impeachments constitute a judicial proceeding, they are deliberative in nature. The Senate is a deliberative body, not a judicial body.
As we know, deliberative and judicial are two types of classical rhetoric. Judicial rhetoric, as defined in Aristotle's Rhetoric is "accusatory or defensive". This is the language of law. In contrast deliberative rhetoric is to "exhort or dissuade", i.e. it's about moving people to do something, or refrain from doing something.
Impeachment of a president is a deliberative process. So although it borrows from the lexicon of the law ("guilty" and "not guilty" etc) it's not about judging the president based on whether the evidence meets a specific standard of proof.
Instead, it's a political process that is about trying to persuade others that removing the president from office is a better course of action than not removing him, or vice versa. Various types of persuasion/ dissuasion can be employed in service of that goal. Aristotle puts it like this: "...all other considerations, such as justice and injustice, honor and disgrace, are included as accessory in reference to this".
At the time the founders were discussing impeachment, the British viceroy of India, Warren Hastings was in the process of being impeached in the House of Lords. As you know the founders were heavily influenced by English law. Edmund Burke, politician and philosopher, was arguing for removal from office. He said an impeachment trial is:
"...tried before Statesmen and by Statesmen, upon solid principles of State morality."
And that the deliberative body considering impeachment has: "the principles of honour, the spirit of cavaliers to govern here; not the low principles of jurisprudence only."
In other words, impeachment trial is not about laws and rules. It's about what's right and wrong; what is the better course of action for society and the state?
Simply put then, I believe the question "does the evidence meet a standard of proof necessary to conclude that Trump did something that warrants removal from office?" is probably inconsistent with what an impeachment is.
Instead, I think a more consistent question would be "in relation to trump's actions, is removing him from office better for the state and for society, than not removing him?" And our arguments for and against can encompass not only everything we have heard about what happened in this specific series of events, but everything we know about Trump himself; everything we strongly suspect; our politics and what we think is right for the country.
All of it is "admissible" in the deliberative process that is an impeachment, or more accurately nothing is "inadmissible" (within the bounds of the law and social mores). In that respect, moving public opinion is a perfectly legitimate aim for impeachment, as public opinion is another "accessory" in reference to persuading others to support, or not support, removal from office.
I think I can sum all that up as: the nature of impeachment is closer to a debate (for or against removal from office) than a court case, even though it looks and sounds more like a court case.
We agree once more. The impeachment process we're watching is solely about (partisan) political power (whether coached as being "better for the state and for society" or not) and has little or nothing to do with guilt or even truth. This time around it is the Dems that control the power, but that does not change the fact that it is 100% a political power play to control the office.
You and I both have made that point, that it is not about a crime, several times (although I believe soliciting foreign aid in affecting an election is illegal). You just wish to promote the idea that it is good for the country to have Democrats controlling the government while I wish the people to do it whatever their assumed political affiliation. I really have gotten a bee in my bonnet about the extreme partisanship, to the point our government can no longer function, and this could not be more partisan. In that respect it is, as I've said before, nothing but a batch of children squabbling in the sandbox, with one set attempting to bully the other into leaving. As such it is doing vast harm, as the pendulum will swing and we can expect any president in the future that does not enjoy complete party affiliation in both house and senate to face the same kind of thing again. And again and again and again.
For me, it's as much about the crimes (soliciting foreign aid in an election) and the right to have free and fair elections. Once you remove that ability, we are no longer a democracy. And an executive that believes he is above the law or oversight is no longer a president, but a king. We may as well burn the Constitution up at that point.
That's rather the point, all right. 1/2 the room declares a crime was committed without anything but opinions by people that know no more than they do and the other 1/2 is pointing that out without regard to circumstantial evidence. You have made a choice - it's your right - but those sitting in that room do not have that right. They are expected, and have the duty, to come to conclusions based on fact not opinion based on dislike or irritation over a job loss.
I just have to ask... And I am sure I will regret it. It is clear you feel Trump was elected due to the Russian assisting him. You do not consider it was his agenda, and the people's disgust here the country seemed to be headed. It seems to be your belief that half the country has gone mad... Lost all common sense. Please consider it maybe just very simply the opposite.
So, my question --- Do you feel all the bad press, Mueller report, impeachment ploy, as well as other memorable unproven sandals will that involved Trump, his many millions of what Dems construe as lies will work to lose the 2020 election? Will the Dems hate campaign work, will Trump lose the election? And if he wins will you once again attribute it to a foreign country? No need to go into detail of your opinion just keep it simple. I am very sure we have shared all our opinions on anything Trump. Just yes or no will do me...
I understanding your asking. I do feel Russia used the internal polling data given to them by Manafort to target a few key states. And their e-mail dump to offset the Access Hollywood tape where Trump admits he just kisses without permission and grabs women by the pu$$ies, aka sexually assaults women, was clearly an influence on the election. For any other candidate, a tape of that nature would have ended their campaign had there been nothing to offset it.
I know why some people voted for him. Government was in gridlock, trying something different was an appealing option.
And protecting our elections from foreign interference is far from an impeachment ploy. Knowing the depth of Russian interference and whether our president is compromised is a necessity for national security. I'm sorry that the Mueller Report hurt your feelings and that you don't see Trump's obstruction of that as criminal.
"I'm sorry that the Mueller Report hurt your feelings and that you don't see Trump's obstruction of that as criminal."
I read the entire boring Mueller report. And it was very boring. I did not see anything that really pointed toward obstruction or collusion. However, that is just my opinion. At best none of the claims that Mueller listed could have been provable. Once again only vague allegations with lack of substance. They could be considered smoke, but that would not cut it to impeach the president on. If the Dems could have used any of the allegations they would have. one thing the Mueller report proved is that the Russians continue to make attempts to interfere in our elections.
When it comes to Russia, we have kept them laughing with all our shenanigans. I guess one would say they sought to divide the country and they have. They also got Trump. If this is what they were going for, they put a man in office that slapped them with heavy sanctions and armed the Ukrian to the teeth. So, I guess we can say they chose the wrong candidate.
Now we face another election, and the writing is on the wall trump most likely will win. Would you have not thought the Dems could have learned something from these past few years? Give the people some consideration, and my God come up with a plausible agenda. Because that is the number one thing Trump offered a good plausible agenda. Independents were up for grabs, and Trump grabs us with his agenda. And he will keep us because he once again has that plausible agenda. I hope you don't take offense at my bluntness.
Trump was against sanctioning Russia, Shar. He was forced by both houses of congress because they voted for the sanctions almost to a person. If he didn't levy the sanctions he would face an outraged population. Even now he's trying to find some way to lift the sanctions. So this makes your claim false.
Of course, Trump makes the false claim he's been tough on Russia and his voters parrot him just as you have.
"Of course, Trump makes the false claim he's been tough on Russia and his voters parrot him just as you have"
I don't parrot anyone I deal in facts. And I don't collect my facts from bias news outlets that pick and choose what they feed their flock. I have added resources to supply factual information on Trump and the sanctions that his administration placed on Russia. It's hard to understand how some can deny anything they just don't want to comprehend. It shows a very poor thought process. Read em and weep... Or better yet just don't read them, easier than facing the truth.
Trump could be no rougher than arming Ukraine. And Randy it is apparent you are not up to date on what sanctions the Trump administration has placed on Russia from the time he walled into office.
In fact, he broke the record Total number of policy actions: 51. I follow this ongoing tally of everything Trump does in regards to Russia. It is updated frequently. I am not sure why you feel Trump is a puppet of Putin. His actions say otherwise. I do realize he has made the statement it would be a positive thing to get along with Russia... Trump is and has been Russia's worst nightmare. Odd the left keep stating derogatory statements about Trump being easy on Putin? He has literally added the most sanctions America has ever placed on Russia. You may want o to reconsider your opion on Trump and Russia.
2019 - read them and weep. CNN jut reports these kinds of positive facts.
Sanctions – In response to the 2018 election interference attempt
Four entities and seven individuals, including Russian financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin, were sanctioned over attempted interference in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections.
Sanctions – In response to sanctions-evading scheme for Syria
The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control identified Moscow-based Maritime Assistance LLC as the head of a “sanctions evasion scheme” to deliver jet fuel to Syria.
Sanctions – In response to Salisbury attack
The U.S. Department of State announced more sanctions against Russia over its use of a nerve agent in Salisbury in 2018. The sanctions fall under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act and mean the U.S. will oppose loans and assistance by international financial institutions, and restrictions on the export on Department of Commerce-controlled goods and technology.
Sanctions – In response to human rights abuses
A Chechen group and 5 Russian individuals were sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act over allegations of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and the torture of LGBT people.
Sanctions – In response to Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine
6 Russian individuals and 8 entities were sanctioned for their involvement in attacks on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait, the annexation of Crimea, and backing of separatist government elections in eastern Ukraine. These actions complement sanctions also taken by the European Union and Canada on the same day.
Sanctions – In response to dealings with Venezuela
The United States sanctioned Evrofinance Mosnarbank, a Moscow-based bank jointly owned by Russian and Venezuelan state-owned companies, for attempting to circumvent U.S. sanctions on Venezuela.
Sanctions – In response to Russia’s continued disregard for international norms
18 Russian individuals were sanctioned for their involvement in a wide range of malign activities, including attempting to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, efforts to undermine international organizations through cyber-enabled means, and the Skripal attack in the United Kingdom
Sanctions – In response to malicious activities
33 Russian individuals and entities were sanctioned for their role in U.S. election interference and their involvement in supporting military operations in Syria and Ukraine. A Chinese entity and its director were also sanctioned for purchasing jet fighters and missiles from Russia.
Executive Order – Imposing sanctions for election interference
President Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions on any nation or individual who authorizes, directs, or sponsors meddling operations in U.S. elections. The order would allow for the freezing of assets and the limiting of foreign access to U.S. financial institutions, as well as a cutoff of U.S. investment in sanctioned companies.
Sanctions – In response to malicious cyber-related activities
2 Russian individuals, a Russian company, and a Slovakian company were sanctioned for helping another Russian company avoid sanctions over the country’s malicious cyber-related activities.
Sanctions – In response to Salisbury attack
The U.S. administration announced it would restrict remaining sources of foreign assistance and arms sales to Russia, and deny U.S. credit to Russia, including through the Export-Import Bank. Restrictions would also prohibit the export of security-sensitive goods and technology
Sanctions – In response to malicious cyber-related activities
5 Russian entities and 3 individuals – all closely linked to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) – were sanctioned.
Sanctions – In response to worldwide malign activity
7 Russian oligarchs and the companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company (and a bank it owns) were sanctioned for their roles in advancing Russia’s malign activities – including the continued occupation of Crimea, engaging in cyberattacks, and supporting Assad’s regime.
Sanctions – In response to election meddling and cyberattacks
5 Russian entities and 19 individuals were sanctioned for conducting a series of cyberattacks and interfering in the 2016 U.S. elections.
Military Action – In response to the attack on U.S.-held base in Deir Ezzor, Syria
U.S. troops killed hundreds of Syrian forces backed by Russian mercenaries (as well as Russian private military contractors). The American bombing was launched in response to a surprise attack on a U.S.-held base in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region in Syria.
Sanctions – In response to Ukraine conflict
21 individuals and 9 entities were sanctioned in connection with the conflict in Ukraine and Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
Sanctions – Global Magnitsky Act
52 people and entities from Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere were sanctioned for alleged human rights violations and corruption.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/
Once again Shar, many these sanctions were levied by a reluctant Donnie and some were delayed unnecessarily until they were suddenly released when the WH was questioned about them. Are you saying Trump wanted the sanctions against Russia when they meddled in our election?
These sanctions were initiated due to Trump's foreign policy. AND Yes he certainly did add sanctions against Russia for meddling in the election. In fact, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to impose sanctions on any country or person that tries to interfere in U.S. elections. Just a fact
Perhaps you need to search out a better news source than CNN. The facts are there for the reading. You will realize some outlets have sources with facts, and yes even names...You won't need to guess or wonder - who could that unnamed source be?
"The move also comes on the heels of U.S. President Donald Trump’s signing of an executive order in September to impose sanctions on any country or person that tries to interfere in U.S. elections."
"The U.S. Treasury Department twinned that development with an announcement that it would lift sanctions on major aluminum company Rusal and two other firms tied to Oleg Deripaska after a deal was struck to sever the Russian oligarch’s control over them.
Deripaska himself will remain under sanctions, Treasury said.
The fresh sanctions targeted 15 members of a Russian military intelligence service and four entities involved in the alleged election interference, the hacking of the World Anti-Doping Agency and other “malign activities” around the world, the Treasury said in a statement on its website.
The action, which followed sanctions in April on Deripaska and six other oligarchs, were “in response to Russia’s continued disregard for international norms,” the statement from Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said.
The move also comes on the heels of U.S. President Donald Trump’s signing of an executive order in September to impose sanctions on any country or person that tries to interfere in U.S. elections. Trump issued the order amid criticism over his handling of Russian election meddling."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1OI27F
Just a few links to back up my argument, Shar.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … onths-ago/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 84866.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/27/trump-h … owder.html
I'll be happy to post more links if you're a glutton for punishment.
It might look like we agree, but I don't think we do on a key aspect.
Yes the process is political, and I've outlined why I think political considerations, including efforts to persuade the public (either way) are a legitimate part of an impeachment process.
I think the Democrats are taking such political considerations into account. But I don't agree that they're only taking political considerations into account. Likewise I don't agree with your view that they have to do that because there is no basis for impeachment from the material evidence. I think Democrats are making political considerations, and that the evidence supports the case for impeachment.
Bear in mind that impeachment is not the same as removal from office. Impeachment just means the House agrees the Senate should consider whether the president should be removed from office.
The publicly available evidence points to behavior which is at best improper, at worst an abuse of authority, so I think it's right to push for the Senate to consider whether Trump's conduct warrants removal from office.
Should he be removed from office? I have personally adopted a standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) even though technically none is required. And I think on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not that Trump abused his authority. But that wouldn't be my only consideration.
I'd also consider, 1. the malevolent attitude and demeanor towards our democratic processes and institutions that Trump's conduct displays; 2. the noxious effect of Trump's attacks on people in government, simply for reporting what they believe is wrongdoing despite them doing so through all the correct channels; 3. the reckless disregard for the country's national interests for the sake of personal political gain, and 4. the treacherous and risky gamble taken with a vulnerable ally for the sake of personal political gain.
Based on those considerations, I'd try to persuade the Senate to remove Trump from office. The likelihood of that happening though is slip to none with a Republican controlled Senate, so I am under no illusions. But I think it's important that the Senate deliberate on the question, and a record of how each Senator voted captured for posterity.
Damn Don! I had your'deliberative versus judicial rhetoric' paragraph highlighted to quote, and then you said this;
"In other words, impeachment trial is not about laws and rules. It's about what's right and wrong; what is the better course of action for society and the state?"
That's a much better summation, (although I did like your Aristotle quote, I am a big fan. I particularly like his position of steps - first, find a point of common agreement).
Keep up the logical and rational good fight. It won't effect entrenched bias but it is always nice to hear an intelligent voice crying out in this void.
And Don gave a logical response which hasn't yet been answered. Perhaps you know of a witness with evidence that categorically shows Trump is innocent of the allegations made against him, and has been blocked from giving their evidence?
I, as usual, will wait for evidence that clearly indicates a crime has been committed. You guys can keep pretending that has happened. Just like every other time the democrats in the House have cried wolf without evidence.
I don't respond to Don because he refuses to answer questions.
"I, as usual, will wait for evidence that clearly indicates a crime has been committed."
An impeachment is a judicial proceeding, but it's not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement for anyone to prove a "crime" has been committed.
You ignored my query re Hunter Biden's crimes, but you don't like it when other's do the same to you?
I didn't ignore. I laughed at the lie of it.
Ignoring it would have been no reply.
But you still refused to list Hunter's so called crimes you claim he committed. Try again...
What I stated was that the facts we know are troubling enough to warrant an investigation. Is he guilty? I don't know. Does this appear to stink to high heaven? Yeh.
I'm not like you where someone is guilty without some type of exploration of the facts to probe guilt or innocence. Haven't you figured that out by now?
Pelosi said Trump would be free to testify before the committee any time he wants to, Dan. What's he have to hide?
??? A disgruntled former employee who has no knowledge of any wrongdoing in connection with anything the democrats are attempting to impeach on has the president by the short hairs?
Good Lord. Have the democrat faithful separated themselves completely from reality?
Why should the transcript matter? In the beginning, Trump proudly announced that he had done it and then tried to backtrack and cover it up. Then Mulvaney admitted it was a quid pro quo and then tried to backtrack. In criminal law, a confession is as good as guilty. I realize that the Republicans try to cover Trump's ass by saying that a sitting president can't be indicted, but I think he may be the first to cover himself with that trick.
You sound just like Hillary - At this point, why does it matter.......
Good jog RJ Schwartz! The point is this: if Trump was impeachable they would have voted for impeachment a long time ago. This inquiry bullshit is all about keeping a lie in the news cycle to discredit this president as long as possible. It's a political stunt. Yes, he did release the full transcript. It was a masterful move. It threw a huge wrench in their strategy. Plus, the people that should have been offended or at least put on the spot (The Ukrainians!), said they were not pressured. Okay, let me think now, "You don't have a quid pro quo, the Ukrainians said they were not pressured even though lying Adam Schiff halfway across the world in America said they were, and all you have in these public hearings are disgruntled diplomats who didn't like policy. They are hearsay witnesses that would have been thrown out of any reputable court in the US. Wow! Bombshell! They truly have a slam dunk case against the president! Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the so-called leaders or conspirators need to be tried for lying under oath and bringing shame to the once honorable branch of government called the House of Representatives.
Now they are pivoting to the term "attempted" - trying to imply that the President attempted something but was caught in the act...these Democrats are destroying their Party and the foundations this nation was built on - impeachment for differences of politics is so "banana republic"
Well, a partial semi-transcript (not sure what to call it) has been released - and whoever released it forgot to take out a couple incriminating sentences.
This is how people end up in courts - they LOOK/SEEM guilty - and then the court is supposed to determine whether or not they actually are. And so far, Trump looks guiltier than we originally thought. Just because you and the rest of his blind supporters refuse to consider the possibility - much less acknowledge any wrongdoings he has EVER done - doesn't make him not guilty.
Don't worry, he still has plenty of time to continue his divisive 'non-pc' discourse that you all think is so damn neato.
"The burden is actually on the prosecution to prove that President Trump committed a crime"
No, impeachment is a judicial proceeding, but not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement for anyone to prove Trump committed a crime.
At this stage there is also no official requirement to "prove" anything, as this is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment trial. The purpose of an inquiry is, by definition, to gather information.
"...why is the person who is third in line to run America speaking just the opposite?"
She isn't. She is referring to something called an affirmative defense:
"This is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts".
So Pelosi is saying, if Trump has an affirmative defense, he should make the committees conducting the inquiry aware of it. In theory, if such an explanation were sufficient to negate the accusations against him, that could end the inquiry and remove the need for an impeachment trial.
"The transcript has already been released......"
No, what was released was a partial transcript compiled from notes of the conversation. It was also reportedly "developed" using automated voice recognition software. That's why the a notice appears on the document published by the White House saying the transcript is based on "...recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers" etc.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … 9.2019.pdf
Also, an NSC official who witnessed the conversation first hand recently testified that the partial transcript has been edited to remove additional references to Biden. He testified that he attempted to correct the record, but was rebuffed.
So available evidence currently suggests the partial transcript that was released is not a complete record of the conversation. If transparency is important, then releasing a full, unedited transcript would be a step in the right direction.
No one has seen the actual transcripts of either call. For some strange reason they have been stored where they cannot be accessed by ordinary means.
As for the "transcript" where Trump actually bribes the Ukraine president, it's simply a memorandum of 10 minutes, where in actuality, the conversation lasted almost 40 minutes. So much for the veracity of the "perfect phone call".
"He made a telephone call."
Wilderness, (Dan), I am in that position described as being between a rock and a hard place.
I agree with the main points I have seen you make; The Democrats are looking for anything that could hurt Pres. Trump, they are trying to make hay off of one phone call's content, and I agree that the phone call itself is not enough to justify their claims of abuse of office.
But, there have been some game-changers for me. The first was that by my perception of the president, I can see him doing exactly what the Democrats have accused him of doing - abuse of office for personal gain, and second was David Holmes' opening statement. His is not hearsay or 2nd or 3rd hand information.
I agree the Democrats are out to savage president Trump by any means they can find. And I agree they would make any molehill into a mountain to do so. But, in this case I think their molehill is a mountain. I think Pres. Trump did exactly what he is being accused of, and I think such abuse of his power is worthy of Congressional action.
I think impeachment is inevitable for two reasons; the first is that the Democrats have the majority, and the second is that I think there is substance to their charges.
However, I would not support removal from office by the Senate, ( I think there is enough wiggle room for reasonable doubt - I prefer the rectitude of the Impeachment action and the verdict of the 2020 voters), and I don't think the Senate will break ranks and vote for removal for purely partisan reasons.
While I won't go so far as to say he made that call to improve his re-election chances, it wouldn't surprise me if that was indeed the primary purpose.
But that's a far cry from proving that WAS the intent - all the claims in the world mean nothing without proof. And without that intent I don't see that anything was so terribly wrong.
But mostly I'm just dejected at what our government has come to. Partisanship is bad enough (IMO) but this goes far beyond that with the entire Democrat section of the house going on not one but now two witch hunts where they start out with one thing and it morphs into anything they can find to harm a political rival. It is not seemly, it is not just and it can only cause harm to the country. This whole thing is, just as the collusion "investigation was, just a Democrat ploy to rid themselves of a president that doesn't follow their rules or goals.
Amen brother. I can give witness to that sentiment.
I don't agree with you or GA... Pelosi really did not want to impeach Trump. She had too many good reason not to. And, there were not a majority of Dems who were willing to take up the question of impeachment until the whistleblower report came out. It raised a big hairy question; and THAT is when 'the majority' of Dems jumped the boat. At that point, Pelosi had no choice.
You all get mad about the private inquiry, but that WAS NOT an impeachment - that was to determine whether or not the actual impeachment process was necessary: was there enough 'evidence' within the testimonies to justify an accusation of abuse of power?
With what we are hearing now from witnesses, there was. No, nothing is 'proven' yet - but then again, Trump et all are not cooperating with regards to testifying. You KNOW that only puts a spotlight on the question of guilt. If Trump did nothing wrong, why not let his people testify? Surely he CAN SEE (as can all of you) how/why anyone might get the wrong idea about that call. Its NOT like the Dems perspective is that hard to grasp.
Why all the grandstanding?
I actually don't have nearly as much of a problem with Trump asking Ukraine for an investigation into the Biden's - but, I DO have a BIG problem with him trying to get them to investigate the 'crowdstrike' stuff: the idea that the server involved in the Russian interference in our election was in the Ukraine and not Russia...
It was announced that Russia had been trying to interfere with our 2016 election BEFORE Trump was ever elected. Now, maybe the Dems got carried away on the collusion stuff - but I have personally HAD IT with Trump dissing our FBI people (and a whole lot of others) every chance he gets. WHY?!! What is Trump hiding that he has to keep it in the back of everyone's mind that RUSSIA isn't 'really' our enemy?
This is the question I want answered; and it probably won't even be taken seriously enough to get covered.
I agree - Pelosi did not want to start an impeachment process. But there were large numbers of increasingly vocal Democrats who did, and they gained in number until it was not politically impossible to ignore them. So...we have an impeachment proceedings because Democrats wanted one and all jumped on the bandwagon.
No, the whistle blower did not raise a question - he raised the possibility that it was politically possible to convince people of wrongdoing when there was no evidence of it.
I served on a jury last year where the judge gave quite a speech to us that the defendants refusal to testify was [b]NOT[/i] to be taken as any sort of evidence of guilt. Yet we continue to see "Well, he must have something to hide or he would appear before congress and cooperate in the effort to find dirt, any dirt anywhere or any time." Comments like "You KNOW that only puts a spotlight on the question of guilt. If Trump did nothing wrong, why not let his people testify?" fall dead center in this and makes it very obvious that it is all about appearance rather than "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
That you had "had it" with Trump is hardly a reason to declare he's guilty or criminal activity, yet that's exactly what thousands of people did when the cry went out that he had personally colluded with Putin to fix the election. And here we are again, with the same thing happening all over - a disgruntled whistle blower insinuates there was wrongdoing, can't prove anything and yet the whole Democrat party jumps up screaming that we need another tremendous "investigation" (into anything and everything) to see if they can't find something, somewhere, that shows how evil Trump is.
I'm sick of it. If that's how our government is going to work, if that's the best we can find for "leaders" of our nation, if our legislature is going to deteriorate into a bunch of kids fighting in the sandbox over who gets the red shovel, then get rid of them and start fresh.
Which is exactly what we need to do and which is what got Trump elected in the first place - American disgust with how our government was being operated. As this whole thing has proceeded we are finding out just who the "deplorables" are and just how dirty the upper echelon truly is. ALL of them.
It is not just the defendant - Trump - who is unwilling to trstify. The defendant is ordering his staff not to testify and not to answer lawful subpoenas.
You conveniently omitted that important detail.
So we keep hearing. But unless Trump has a very valid reason for thinking those subpoenas are illegal in the first place, or do not carry the weight of law, I don't see him ordering others to become criminals. I'm sure you do - you would shout to the heavens he is a crook and taking others with him - but I don't see him as that stupid. Gullible, maybe, if someone is telling him it's OK to do that, but not stupid. Again, you will disagree, for aren't you one of the ones declaring him to be just that - stupid and of very low IQ?
America is now disgusted with Trump's lawlessness. Are you happy now?
Same-O same-o. Do you not learn, Randy? Making accusations, even making claims of criminal activity, means exactly nothing until decided by a court. Except, of course, that you don't care if what you want to say is true or not.
"No, the whistle blower did not raise a question - he raised the possibility that it was politically possible to convince people of wrongdoing when there was no evidence of it."
That's right, there was the suggestion of it... which is why the inquiry to find out if there was anything to it took place AND continues in public view. There is also the fact that the WH tried to hide it.
"refusal to testify was [b]NOT[/i] to be taken as any sort of evidence of guilt"
No, it is not evidence of guilt; but neither does it straighten anything out, either - which is my point, it puts a spotlight on WHY they refuse to testify. They COULD do their duty and explain themselves in an orderly way. They aren't. Why not clarify the truth if the Dems have everything wrong?
"That you had "had it" with Trump is hardly a reason to declare he's guilty or criminal activity"
I didn't say he was guilty... I said that was the question I have. I could really care less about the Biden's. Why does he keep trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about Russia; AND why do you support him on that? Do you have a thing for Russia, too? I already said that the Dems went overboard in their collusion bs.
"the whole Democrat party jumps up screaming that we need another tremendous "investigation" (into anything and everything) to see if they can't find something, somewhere, that shows how evil Trump is."
Well, that is just because he keeps DOING & SAYING things that make him SEEM guilty - and again, Trump does absolutely nothing to try and set the record straight aside from attacking people who have good reason to ask questions of him.
"I'm sick of it. If that's how our government is going to work, if that's the best we can find for "leaders" of our nation, if our legislature is going to deteriorate into a bunch of kids fighting in the sandbox over who gets the red shovel, then get rid of them and start fresh."
Totally agree. I am also very sick of the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the next while we all go nowhere as a country and accomplish nothing. Next year the socialists that you fear so much will probably gain power - and you'll cry. But, you won't admit that you had anything at all to do with it by forcing your ridiculous extremism in the opposing direction.
"Which is exactly what we need to do and which is what got Trump elected in the first place - American disgust with how our government was being operated."
Yes, that was why he was elected... and I will remind you ALL that he was elected by all kinds of different people, including former Obama voters and Bernie voters who saw an opportunity to stick it to both the government and the Dems. Conservatives keep dissing 'liberals' when they should be thanking them.
These very same people may or may not make a different choice next time around. But, living in Seattle, I can tell you that many liberals/independents/progressives who voted for Trump regret that decision at this point because of the way he has handled himself pretty much as a very rude dictator - especially women, but I had a long conversation with a very worried 'white guy' flat-earther who very much regretted his vote and was worried, LONG before this impeachment stuff started.
"No, it is not evidence of guilt; but neither does it straighten anything out, either - which is my point, it puts a spotlight on WHY they refuse to testify."
With the implied assumption that there is some nefarious activity going on or he WOULD testify. Right back to the point that refusing to speak is not guilt.
"Why not clarify the truth if the Dems have everything wrong?"
Do you honestly believe that a single Dem in that room would accept anything he said? They wouldn't accept God's testimony if it was that Trump is innocent! Which is a very good reason for refusing to speak - anything he said will be spun into guilt and you know that as well as I do.
"Why does he keep trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about Russia; AND why do you support him on that?"
This is the very kind of thing I'm talking about. I've never supported Trump's dealings with Russia, for I don't know what they were. So where in the world are you getting your info for a statement like that? I DO support peaceful co-existance with them, though - don't you?
Yes, yes, I know. In 2020 not a single vote will be placed for Trump because everyone in the country is leaving him. We hear that and we hear it...but I don't see it actually happening. Just claims that it is.
Trump doesn't have the nerve to testify, Dan. He may give some written answers--something he said was unacceptable from the Whistle blower--but I seriously doubt he will do even that as his written answers to Mueller are now under scrutiny since the Roger Stone conviction.
Why aren't the Democrats charging him? What's the holdup? Your Party has spent three years working on nothing but impeachment and you still don't have anything even close to a "high crime" other than the fact that Trump beat Mrs. Clinton handily.
The articles of impeachment are coming Ralph. Trump is stalling to try and get this closer to the 2020 election.
Why on Earth would he block the grand jury testimony from the Mueller Report being available to Congress? Why would he obstruct an investigation into the hostile foreign government that attacked our democracy in 2016? These are the illegal actions of a guilty person.
RJ - It is clear the Dem's have no charges as of yet. They are having the inquiry to make an attempt to stumble on some form of crime. This is sad, it is not American to accuse someone and then look for the crime. It is a waste of money and it stands to further discourage many people in the way our Government is failing us... and we have very little we can do about it.
It's long overdue if the Dem's have any form of punishable crime Trump committed. it's time to name those crimes. This kind of inquiry is not on we should have to watch. It's unconstitutional and just plain wrong. If Trump committed an impeachable crime and it is proven factually he deserves to be impeached. Otherwise, this is nothing but a smear campaign. So far I have seen nothing that could be an impeachable crime.
See Val's comment right above yours, Shar. Respond to his queries if you can.
Maybe you don't see it as being impeachable... But, what I found most interesting about Sondland's testimony was that Ukraine was being pressured to 'announce the investigations' - and that they apparently didn't have to actually DO them.
Maybe there is more to be said about this, but if you are a Trump supporter, don't you need to ask yourself WHY Trump was more interested in Ukraine announcing these investigations 'in a public way' - as opposed to actually getting to the bottom of corruption?
Trump wanted to be able to stand on a stage in front of his ignorant supporters and be able to CLAIM, 'LOOK, THEY started investigations into these things - there MUST be something to them!"
He has been manipulating you ALL ALONG, and everyone can see it but his actual supporters. It is also why there are so many more 'entitled' hate crimes, now. Trump spews bad behavior, and people who identify with him become more emboldened for their own bad behavior. After all, if so many people approve of him and he can get away with it - so can they.
I know you are all very proud of yourselves and him, anyway. Whatever.
I am not all that sure you have followed my views. After all, on a forum such as HP, it is clearly to share not only facts but opinions. I can respect your opinion, but not always agree with it.
If you followed my comments in the past I think you might find I am down the middle. I call as I see it. I criticize Trump when I see he should be criticized, I also am known for supporting his accomplishments. So, I can see we come from different places when we consider what he may have done right and may have done wrong.
I regards to the comment you responded to I realize we all have strong feelings about the impeachment process. First, I have expressed I felt all along Trump was clear in asking for the Biden's being investigated, and that he had the right legally to do so. I believe as you do his motive was to use the info against Biden in the 2020 election.
Although where we most likely disagree is that the impeachment will end in removing the president. I don't think there is enough solid evidence to so far that will lead to his removal from office. Yes, I respect all of the witnesses that have come forward, and respect their opinions. However, I see no factual evidence of the president's motive hat can be well-proven in an impeachment trial.
My own feelings are he needed to be censured. Congress can do this, and it certainly would work to stop people in their tracks and consider this when they vote. A failed impeachment will strengthen his base and give him something to shout about at his rallies. It is just common sense the Senate will shut this down once it reaches the trial. The president will then have the right to have witnesses, and attornies represent him before the Senate vote. This will gin up the base.
Please don't feel I don't note the many shabby, unkind or rediculous things Trump does. I do, and I call it as I see it. As I have said in the past I voted for him due to his agenda, I am satisfied with his actual job performance but very disappointed in how he conducts himself. I might add for many years I have become more and more discussed with what I witnessed going on in our government. I opted for change.
That I got... I am not proud of Trump for the way he asked for the Biden's to be investigated. If he had cause or proof to ask for an investigation he should have gone about it vis the proper channels.
Hopefully, you might realize Trump supporters are individuals and have their own reasons for casting their vote for Trump.
Gosh, if you had been following my views - past and otherwise - I have been saying all along that Trump should not be impeached, no matter what he does. This country is too divided; and frankly, I am afraid that it will implode if things go too far. Then again, that seems to be what fans of the dictator want...
I have also said that I do not think that the Senate will remove Trump from office - not with so many enabling GOP jerks sitting in there, still.
In this case, I think it will be up to the people in 2020 to decide if he stays or if he goes - which, they would have done anyway had this not happened.
I know why people voted for Trump. I think you have it simplified in your head - when in fact, people voted for him for a variety of reasons, not all because of his agenda. Again, T-fans should be thanking all those liberals who helped put him in there. There are not enough conservatives to do that, especially with so many #nevertrumpers - yeah, you should all be thanking all those uber-liberal disappointed former Obama voters & rebellious Bernie voters (the 100% FREE everything peeps!)...
Trump's base is holding - even if it hasn't grown; and he is losing some regretful former Obama and Bernie voters (and some Conservatives). And he is never at a loss for something obnoxious to hype up his rally audiences with. He certainly didn't need an impeachment hearing to add to that. But he is good at making them feel sorry for him. "See how unfair they treat me!"
Nothing has really changed. We just get to listen to how 'legal' it should be that Trump tried to get the Biden's investigated so that he could further manipulate his rabid fox brainwashed base - along with the crowdstrike conspiracy, which as I've said, is the part that I have a problem with.
Really... WHY does he keep trying to convince everyone that Russia is not our enemy? I don't care about the Biden's - I care about that.
I'm not a fan of Trump supporters; and I doubt I ever will be. You all should have damn-well known better when you were casting your votes. Your defenses have always been lame and illogical. NONE of you teach your kids to act like him; and NONE of you would approve of ANY OTHER president who acts like this. Imagine if Obama had said ANY ONE of the divisive things Trump blurts out on a daily basis on Twitter. You would have gone WAY beyond accusing him of being the anti-christ.
Trump would have been taken a lot more seriously all of this time had he dropped that one bad habit. It is impossible to have any respect for him at all - or any of his enablers, within his political party or otherwise.
I realized that this gets a little hot against Trump supporters... But, I am really mad at you all; and I'm mad that you've made me this MAD, ha!
Even I can see why the Dems had to follow through with the discovery process of these accusations. Even I am appalled at the testimonies I'm hearing - and I am infuriated by you all STILL defending him!
Its legal... HOW is it legal for the president of this country to constantly be swiping at our intelligence agencies about their supposed incompetence about Russia interfering in our 2016 elections? Jeez, in hindsight, we can all SEE how it happened and why. It is totally believable; plus its been backed up by outside and foreign agencies.
How is it legal for him to investigate the Biden's? As I've said, I don't care about them. I certainly don't want to vote for Joe, LoL! But, I can still see 'what's wrong' with it.
Come on! How can you be this obtuse?! Oh that's right, Trump is your hero and leader.
It just goes to show no matter how corrupt this cretin is his base will still support him.
Consider many that voted for him have the opinion he was treated poorly from day one. We sat and watch nonsensical allegations about you name it". We watch the rediculous expensive Mueller report, which produced nothing but unproven "what if's"... Did you ever consider if the Dem' could prove even one of the conclusions Mueller come up with that they would not? My God man they would have... Wake up, and consider he actually has not broken any laws. At best he abused his power, as Obama did on a hot mike a Russian president... It is almost sad to watch such confusion on the Dems part. They just needed to come up with a candidate that offered what the people desired in2016. They didn't and once again they have not. They chose to try from day one to overthrow a duly elected president. And still, think this ploy will win them back the WH. The writing is on the wall, they have made fools of the party, and those that chose to follow the party. Randy, may just be time for Dems to take back their party and demand a candidate that would have a chance of beating Trump. You are being walked down a path that will take many years to repair.
We are now sitting through an impeachment that is going to be voted down by the majority. This is just common sense. We are watching a bias crazy media bury what they choose, and twist the BS they report. Many are realizing the president is doing a great job running the country. Not sure if you realize Republicans are known for common sense, and follow that instinct especially seeing that the man we voted for is working to make the country a better place. Solving many long term problems we have had for many years. You may want to consider this when you insult his base.
MS, I must admit I have not followed your posts. It appears we have similar views on impeachment. I feel if Congress can prove any of their allegations Trump should be removed from office. At this point, I don't think they can> My common sense tells me this is a futile attempt, due to the Senate majority will in the end vote against impeachment. It well appears we will never know Trump's motives, but it was more likely to gain dirt on Bidden. Sad that our system will fail us due to Majority.
In regards to Obama, he was very well-spoken. But return to the day Obama was heard on a hot-mike doing much the same Trump is being used of Quid Pro quo without any real evidence of motive. Obama was overheard speaking to President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia stating. "I will have more flexibility to negotiate on issues after the 2012 election."
Although this could sound very incriminating the Congress did not seek to impeach him. As they should not have.Due to not knowing his motive for the statement. It certainly was a shocking statement, but his motive was not questioned. he was up for reelection and this very well could have been misconstrued as letting Russia know he would be very willing to work with them on several issues...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama … ty-russia/
What I am pointing out is we just have no provable motive to impeach the president on his phone call with Zelinsky.
I can absolutely see how you have no respect for the way he communicates. I must ask, do you feel his job performance is poor, putting aside his narcissistic personality?
It would be very hard to explain how one separates Trump's job performance from his off personality. All I can say is that at my age I have watched enough of what has gone on for many years in Washington, and was just over it... I felt the country was headed down the wrong path, and we needed to abruptly stop the BS. I am tired of politics as usual. Pretty speeches that offer hollow ridiculous promises. I wanted to see some problem solving, and that much I feel I have got. I have not heard a pretty speech in the past three years, in fact I have been shocked pretty much day after day. But my hopes of seeing some problem solved have come to fruition.
We have no way of knowing what Donnie and Putie discussed in their one-on-one meeting behind closed doors. You can bet Donnie was more than "flexible" as he had all of the notes hidden. But that's just fine with you, correct?
Randy, In reality, Trump has put the worst sanctions Russia has had to date. He armed Ukraine with weapons to fight the Russians. How can you in all good faith hold onto the conspiracy theory that Trump loves Putin? It has not played out in any respect. You need to face these common facts. Trump's foreign policies have been the best the Ukrain government has had. Ever witness that has been presented in the inquiry even admitted that as a fact. Clinton had them give up their nukes, Bush ignored their pleas for weapons, Obama was the worst, and ley them be attacked time and time again and offered nothing more than humanitarian aid.
I get so tired of hearing the theory Trump loves Putin. If that's love I would hate to see Trump hating on Putin. maybe time to let that train of thought go... Look at the facts.
Do you not understand a sitting POTUS cannot be charged, RJ? Otherwise Donnie would already be indicted alongside his former attorney Michael Cohen. As it is, he is considered an unindicted co-conspirator. In other words, a criminal who is waiting to be indicted.
And that's just the beginning of his troubles, Ralph.
I agree with your sentiment in regards to Pelosi's thought process. She did the right thing in calling for an official inquiry. However, she knew the gamble of where this could end up. One must also note she has emphasized time and again "this is an inquiry to find facts". In my opinion, she has been around the block, and unless the inquiry comes up with provable facts she will not send it to the Senate for a trial.
It appears there is a lot of smoke, but will it amount to a provable fire? The inquiry has certainly presented the elusion of abuse of power. But can they connect the dot with a factual case?
When I look at how obviously transparent Trump was about the call, holding the funds, and even using Guliani doing his back door bidding, it seems it would be hard to prove his motives or his purposely abusing his power. To me, this looks planned and was an abuse of power. I just wanted to point out the scenario of extortion or abuse of power may be hard to prove in a trial. This may give Pelosi pause when it comes to calling for impeachment proceedings. It would be a political gamble to proceed if impeachment allegations could not be proven.
"The transcript has already been released......"
And IMO, the transcript was already sufficiently damning to warrant impeachment. The quid pro quo--aid for political dirt--was implicit but unmistakable to an impartial mind, given that both the Presidential meeting and the military aid had been withheld for months by July 25. The abuse of power documented in that transcript is nothing short of spectacular.
by SunShineSnow 10 years ago
What do you believe to be true, innocent until proven guilty or the opposite?Do you have to prove yourself innocent or do they have to prove you guilty? The law says innocent until proven guilty.
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the controversial video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxg7Lml … r_embedded
by Ralph Schwartz 3 months ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
DoubleScorpion says:And Lack of knowledge is not the same as sin. Just because my kids have not learned all the survival tools required to live on there own does not mean that they are sinners. Kids don't not know how to sin. They are taught to sin by thier...
by John 5 months ago
I don't know about you, but the wagon wheels on this impeachment iniative are starting to come off. The recent challenge by Trump for Pelosi to bring the impeachment inquiry to a house vote is a win-win move. If it comes to a vote and they decide not to impeach, then we go back to waiting for the...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 months ago
The Adam Schiff-led show trial in the House tells us everything we need to know. It's purely a political stunt to turn voters away from President Trump. A couple of the key statements and findings that America has learned from the lengthy commentary:“At No Time Was I Aware of – an...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|