Impeachment - What We Know So Far
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 Effort to Urge Ukraine to Investigate Vice President Biden” – Ambassador Volker
Bill Taylor & George Kent: Never met POTUS, weren't on the 7/25 call
Yovanovitch “I cannot bring any firsthand knowledge to... the phone call or delay of aid.”
Vindman "I've never had any contact with POTUS"
Not one of the people brought before the Committee could offer any example of a crime or a reason for impeachment. Mr. Vindman was caught adding his own words to the official report on the call, failed to properly report any concerns through his normal chain of command, and leaked a classified call to outsiders. Adam Schiff repeatedly leads witnesses and has not been forthcoming in sharing transcripts.
Will the Democrats continue this waste of taxpayer dollars or push on, knowing full well that the Senate will not convict and Trump will cruise to re-election?5:40 P.M. — Morrison says Vindman was upset he was cut out from some matters regarding Ukraine.
5:39 P.M. — Morrison says that he had concerns that Vindman leaked information to the media.9:45 A.M. Wednesday-- Sondland testifies there was a quid pro quo Trump was trying to achieve in the Ukraine. Trump is guilty of attempted bribery and extortion in the process.
If there was quid pro quo, how did Ukraine get the funding and no investigation take place on Biden? That is one lousy quid pro quo.
Again, where is the proof? This contradicts his previous testimony he made in a closed-door session.
"His testimony on Nov. 20 will be highly scrutinized because his account, in small and large ways, has been contradicted by testimony of many other witnesses. Already, Sondland has provided a supplemental declaration expanding on his initial deposition, saying his memory had been “refreshed” after reading the opening statements of others."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … repancies/
"Refreshed" by others... puh-leeze.Simply put, he lied the first time, and decided he'd prefer not go to jail rather than continue lying after so many others contradicted his testimony.
Where is the proof? Testimony, under oath, of multiple credible witnesses corroborated by considerable physical evidence in the form of texts, emails, and phone call records.
Just because the funds were released after the thugs got caught, does not mean a crime wasn't committed.
Feeble, Mike, feeble."Testimony, under oath, of multiple credible witnesses corroborated by considerable physical evidence in the form of texts, emails, and phone call records."
I like your imagination. That is the only place these things exist.
You still have two problems.
1. We have read the conversation.
2. The funds were released shortly AFTER the phone conversation and NO investigation into Biden occurred on the part of Ukraine.
You may not realize it, but that ends the game.
Lying the first time? It is sworn testimony. People with any knowledge of the law realize that is PERJURY worthy of jail time.
ALSO, people who know the law realize there is something called "hearsay" which is what makes up most of the "damning" testimony.
There is NOTHING just ignorance of the law and misguided imagination of the left.
Sorry, I believe understanding this is above the ability of most people on the left.
Just like reality.Still spouting old debunked talking points. I'm not wasting any more time with you.
How about public testimony.
"President Trump quoted a portion of the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland as he departed the White House Wednesday: "I want nothing. I want nothing," Mr. Trump read to reporters outside the White House. "I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky — President Zelensky to do the right thing."
"The quote referred to a September 9 conversation that Sondland depicted as "very short and abrupt." Mr. Trump disputed Sondland's characterization of him as having been in a bad mood — "I'm always in a good mood. I don't know what that is." He then suggested he was quoting Sondland saying, "This is the final word from the president of the United States: 'I want nothing.'"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-quot … d-pro-quo/
The imagination of the left knows no boundaries.Sure he said this after the whistleblower came out.
He's not keeping up.
From Sondland's testimony, on top of Lt. Col. Fine man and others, all under oath:
The president ordered it. Everyone knew about it. It was quid pro quo.
Today, look for GOP to stupidly parrot Russian propaganda.Every single one has said...they have no evidence of Quid pro quo...Every Single One...
Sondland said he presumed...but wasn't told by anyone. period. that the aid was tied up as part of a QPQ...
He even contradicted the running banner of CNN, on CNN, live...That their banner was false and Schiff lied about his testimony...
Are folks even watching the Inquiry Hearings?Yes, I'm watching. Nunes is less sweaty today, but still licking his lips.
I know it makes you feel good to grasp at the least plausible scenario, to believe Trump over esteemed patriots like Lt. Col. Vindman.
Your choice. Will you be on the right side of history? No, you'll be right there with the GOP, furthering Putin's propaganda at the expense of your own country.As someone with over 22 years of Active duty and now retired...Vindman is not an esteemed patriot and the Majority of us Veterans feel the same...
I am not with the DNC or GOP...I am independent...
I am not believing Trump over anyone...I am going from what is actually being said in these hearings...
Every single one of them have said...that they have no evidence of QPQ, Bribery or anything else...from their own mouths...
All of the witnesses, except Vindman, said they didn't have a problem with the call...
If they want to even have a hope of getting a conviction in a senate impeachment trial...they are going to need much better witnesses and evidence...because as of right now...they have no chance, and are doing little more than helping Trump, instead of hurting him...Just look at Trumps donations since this has started...it seems to be helping him....I will ask how it is you know the majority of veterans do not consider Vindman to be an esteemed patriot?
The rest contains false statements but I no longer wast much time arguing with Trump defenders. Time will prove you all wrong, just as time proved Iraq War cheerleaders wrong.How am I defending Trump?
I am just stating what has been said during the hearings...
Are you calling the witnesses liars?
I find it interesting that if you disagree or have a different viewpoint...then you must be a Never Trumper or a Trump Supporter...
I am curious as to when people stopped thinking for themselves?I repeat: I will ask how it is you know the majority of veterans do not consider Vindman to be an esteemed patriot?
I heard witnesses say they saw quid pro quo. If you walk into your home to see a stranger holding open the door to your safe, do you believe him when he says he was merely checking your security system?
That is what you're trying to do here.Well...as to the veteran question...
I am part of more than a few Social Media groups made of up of veterans which have 100,000's of members in each group...and they all say pretty much the same thing...
Which witness said "I saw Quid Pro Quo"? Because the ones I heard, all said when asked if they had Direct knowledge or Evidence of Quid Pro Quo, they said NO...
They all said, I assumed, presumed, was told, or was told by someone who overheard...
I would ask that you offer a link to which witness did say "I saw Quid Pro Quo", because if that was actually said then I seriously did miss it."They all said, I assumed, presumed, was told, or was told by someone who overheard..."
Yes, just like if you catch a stranger with your open safe, you assume he was about to steal your stuff, which is certainly true.
As for the veterans, anecdotal.your "catching a stranger with my safe open"...is not the same...
A better example would be...I heard from my neighbor, that they caught a stranger with their safe open.
I assume that my neighbor told me the truth catching a stranger with their safe open...but where it becomes troublesome, is if I also assume that the stranger was robbing them, without proof that that is what did happen. Maybe the stranger interrupted someone else from attempting to rob my neighbors safe...The only thing that I know for sure...is that my neighbor told me, that they caught a stranger with their safe open...
But...the courts would not be interested in asking me what happened at my neighbors house, if I could only say that my "neighbor told me"...and not ask my neighbors what happened ...they would ask my neighbors what they witnessed...
Your example is not the best for another reason....If I was to catch someone in my house (which was locked) and at my safe which was open (but was locked previously)...then my first assumption would be one of robbery...that doesn't mean that I am correct...but it would be probably a correct assumption.
This scenario is not the same...POTUS is the one who sets policies among other things...so he wouldn't be a "stranger"...it would be more equivalent to say the wife comes home and catches the husband with the cookie jar open and assume he was eating cookies (even if he wasn't)Wow, you put a lot of effort into that. I'm not interested enough to continue arguing the point, so
Perhaps Trump will ask Rudy, Pompeo, and Mulvaney to testify under oath to his innocence. Clear this matter right up. Hmmm, I wonder why that hasn't happened?I would like to see them testify as well...And I sure we will, if this actually goes to impeachment trial.
Is your social media group nonpartisan? This does make a difference you know.
I bet Guiliani could answer the quid pro quo question. Oh, that's right, he's choosing to not answer a lawful subpoena. Perhaps Mulvaney and Pompeo would like to answer since Sondlund just implicated them. Bolton? Denying that subpoenas apply to them. Welcome to an authoritarian regime.
Isn't it odd that the president, who insists there was no quid pro quo, does not want those closest to the situation to testify. I mean, if there was no withholding of funds in exchange for an investigation of his.political rival then these people could easily clear this right up and testify to Trump's innocence. Under oath, of course.
It's so baffling!
Well...There is a mix of just about everyone in the military...so, yes...I would say more like poly-partisan...
When did YOU stop thinking for yourself, DP? You're simply parroting Limbaugh and Hannity, and as Sandy asked, where you get off speaking for all veterans? You do know there's several veterans on the witness list, or do you?
You keep saying I am "parroting" people or networks...
And I keep telling you that I don't watch those things...(hearings aside on cnn)
And I didn't speak for all veterans...but the majority...and as I stated...I am a part of multiple military groups on various social media that have 100K+ members per group and the Majority feel quite similar to me.
So yeah...I am in the loop on a majority of military members current and former...and I can only tell you what I see them saying..
So, is my repeating what I see or hear them say any different that what the witnesses are doing in this inquiry?
Are you saying I don't have the right to do that? That after my 22 years of service, I am not a bit of an expert...That I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, because I am repeating hearsay? That I am not speaking facts?
And yet this lieutenant colonel is so esteemed by the Army that he was assigned to the White House staff of the National Security Council.
The fact that he gave testimony hurting Trump gives NO ONE the right to smear his reputation and patriotism. Shameful.Your comment tells me that you don't know much about how things in the military work...
And if you think that there isn't politics involved in the higher ranks, then I know you don't know about military...
But, his testimony for or against...that part doesn't matter... it is his actions period that many of us have the issue with...jumping past his Chain of Command, leaking to others without the Need to Know (regardless of clearance), Exaggerating his FitRep accomplishments, to name a few...
If we are going with Just being Military means Good reputation and Patriot...You may want to look into Fat Leonard case, The Human trafficking case, the selling of secrets to China case...to name a few that happened recently...
But yes...his reputation and patriotism is so great, that Ukraine offered him to be the leader of their defense department 3 times...Unlike Trump, the Ukraine admires honesty and integrity. Something sadly lacking in our own country, and especially in the Oval Office.
Seriously?? You are joking right?
Everything else aside...
You don't honestly think that about Ukraine correct?The new Ukraine president was elected because he wanted to clean up the country and he ran on that platform. Now the first thing he runs into is being extorted by our country. Are you proud of that?
Are you also proud of distinguished envoys and ambassadors being smeared and insulted by the cretin because they tell the truth?You didn't answer my question...deflection...cool...
And so far...I haven't seen anything that substantiates Ukraine was being extorted...
Although, I do think that verifying intent to follow through on fighting corruption is a valid reason to pause any aid to any country that has previously been known to be corrupt.
I don't know the envoys or ambassadors...so I can't speak to their characters, be it distinguished or not...But...I do notice that those who hold a serious dislike or hate of POTUS only speak of him in insults or other names...So...it seems to me that most are guilty of the same stuff they accuse the other side of doing...
I am hoping this whole thing goes to trial in the Senate...I am interested to see the witnesses from both sides and the prosecution and defense questioning witnesses...I think it will very interesting and hopefully expose many of the issues within our government.
I suppose here soon we will have the FISA report (Dec 9th) and it already seems there was some shady things happening... Looking forward to reading that.What witnesses insulted Trump during their testimony? And I wasn't deflecting, merely pointing out how bad Trump's extortion looks to the world and our allies.
Wow, if President Donald Trump ordered it, then someone didn't follow orders. The aid to Ukraine got released and NO investigation into the Biden's was conducted by Ukraine.
Now if anyone has anything other than hearsay evidence, I would like to see it. The problem is hearsay evidence is a bit more complicated of a legal concept than most people on the left can comprehend.I'm truly saddened to see what appears to be reasonably intelligent people defending a criminal.President with partial truths and dumb rabbit-hole sidesteps about "hearsay."
There really is no point talking about anything Trump-related with a cult member.I believe there is no point in talking with someone suffering with a severe case of TDS. There is help available. I suppose hearsay is as confusing to those on the left as is the legal concept of conviction.
Mike, do you really think a guy who would illegally divert funds raised for veterans to his own political campaign cares a whit about corruption in Ukraine? Really?
This president let the Saudis murder a Washington Post reporter and did nothing. And you think he cares about corruption anywhere?
Really?
The aid was released "shortly" after the call . . . Is almost two months "shortly" by your thinking?
Also, and just as a point of discussion because I haven't confirmed it, does it matter that Pres. Trump didn't unilaterally decide to finally release the aid?
It seems a portion of it, ($141 million), was released by State Dept. lawyers and the rest was released based on an action by Senator Durbin.
GA
No he didn't - when pressed he admitted that he presumed there was.
Trump's own transcript say there was a quid pro quo attempted but failed when the whistleblower emerged. Of course, you know how he lies all the time.
Where is the Quid pro quo in the transcript that was released?
Did I miss the "Do this or I wont do this", or the "Do this and I'll do that"?
Hasn't everyone but Vindman stated that the call was good and they have no evidence of QPQ?There are two facts the left can't get past.
1. Ukraine got the funding
2. Ukraine did NOT start an investigation into the Bidens after getting funding.
So, these facts show there is no QPQ. It doesn't matter what people thought they heard, who told them what by whom.
THESE are the facts.
It is truth that destroys all the left's allegations. This is what makes the impeachment inquiry a total and complete joke.And these are the true facts that the right cannot process....
1.) The aid only got released after Trump got caught by the whistleblower demanding an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens for personal gain. Making a statement that you didn't commit a crime, after you get caught committing that crime is a piss-poor defense.
2.) Ukraine likely knows what Hill, Volker, Morrison, and others testified to, that impropriety by the Joe Biden is a Russian conspiracy theory that the GOP has latched onto and is promoting.
3.) Claiming hearsay when Trump and Mulvaney already went on television and admitted to a quid pro quo is an amazing claim.
4.) And using the hearsay defense when Trump has obstructed many witnesses from being able to testify under legally-issued subpoenas is like telling us that we never saw the crime because you poked our eyes out first. Rationalizing one crime as a defense for another really is idiocy.
Getting caught using the office for personal gain and withholding much-needed military aid to a country in the midst of a military conflict is an abuse of power.I think he knows all these things but is desperately defending dear leader with half-truths and distortions. I suspect he feels pretty greasy doing it but just can't bring himself to contradict the cult.
Exactly. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of whatever street he wanted, with a million witnesses, and some people will still defend him. He knows it, and they know it.
He is much more than a President to some people. They have an idol, some sort of holy god that can do no wrong no matter how much wrong he does.This is from three years ago, here on Hubpages:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/138 … on-people-
I saw a recent poll that said 30% of Christian Trump supporters explicitly stated there is nothing Trump could do to lose their support. That is a cult.
You guys are funny.
1. Did you watch the inquiry at all? The Republicans clearly established that aid is routinely held up to foreign countries for a variety of reasons. Honduras and others. Holding up aid is nothing new. It's been happening for many years.
2. "Ukraine likely knows" I like your assumptions and imagination.
3. I think this is part of your imagination. I watched everything and this never happened. Good try. Oh, and quid pro quo was dropped and they were going for bribery. Such a joke.
4. Sorry, due process would require the Republicans be permitted to call their witnesses. You need to learn about something called executive privilege. President Donald Trump did nothing illegal.
Again, I applaud your active imagination.
Oh, and in recent polling President Donald Trump is crushing Biden and the donations to the Republican party are flowing in at record levels.
Maybe we should be thankful for the sham impeachment.
Two points you can't change.
1. Ukraine got the aid
2. No investigation was conducted on the Bidens by the Ukraine.
That is pretty much the bottom line."Yo, Guido, Tony ratted on us Go ahead and give 'em the money. Then I'll say we were perfect and enough schmucks will believe us. We'll be golden."
I'm sure the Trumpers will understand when a future POTUS from the Dem party does the same in the future. I find it hilarious they're complaining about rules used in Hillary's Benghazi investigation set by the Cons.
Hypocrites they are.
"1. Ukraine got the aid"
You seem to have missed out some relevant information from your timeline:
May 2019: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informs Congress that he 'certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.'
July 10: Gordon Sondland, John Bolton, Fiona Hill and others meet with Ukrainian officials at the White House. Sondland says Zelensky will get a meeting with trump if Ukraine agrees to launch investigations specifically into Burisma and Biden's son. Bolton stops the meeting. Advises Hill to report the discussion to the chief lawyer for the National Security Council (John A. Eisenberg). Hill does as Bolton advises.
July 18: The Office of Management and Budget announces to national security officials that $391 million in security aid to Ukraine is being withheld until further notice, due to a presidential order.
July 25: Trump explicitly asks Zelensky to investigate Biden's son. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman reports the call to the NSC's chief legal advisor.
A member of Laura Cooper's staff receives a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what's going on with Ukraine security assistance.
August 10: The Ukrainians know military aid is frozen. Sondland and Kurt Volker work on draft language for Zelensky's announcement of investigations. Andriy Yermak (aide to Zelensky) texted Volker and Sondland to say: "I think it’s possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit".
August 12: A whistleblower submits a complaint to the ICIG about the July 25 call.
August 16: The National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department all agree military assistance to Ukraine should be released. Trump rejects the recommendation. An aide says the "president doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all".
September 1: Zelensky asks Mike Pence about the aid. Pence says he will speak to Trump. Sondland tells Yermak not to expect the money unless Zelensky announces the investigations.
September 7 (26 days after the Whistleblower complaint was made): Trump says to Sondland he wants "nothing" from Ukraine etc.
September 11 (2 days after a House committee opens an investigation into the whistleblower complaint): Trump releases the military aid.
October 4: Ukraine prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka announces his office is "auditing" cases related to Burisma Holdings, the company Trump requested Zelensky investigate along with Biden's son.
Hope this helps as an indicator of why Ukraine may have eventually received the military aid.Yeah, and?
Lots of hearsay evidence here, nothing proven. Lots and lots of I heard, assumed, was told by, etc.
As the Republicans established during the hearings, aid is now and has been routinely held up for many other countries under many other presidents.
You do know that Burisma has been the target of an investigation by the Ukrainian government for many months. It was actually one of the things the new president had as part of his platform. You should read about the new Ukrainian president and how he ran on a platform of battling corruption.Holmes hearing the POTUS on the unclassified phone call isn't hearsay, no matter how badly you want it to be, Mike.
It is not direct evidence either.
A defense attorney would want to know what proof he has that he actually heard the phone call and is not making up that he heard a phone call. If he wasn't intended to hear or be part of the phone call...why was he listening to it?
I would like to hear what he can provides as proof. That is called circumstantial evidence.
(From Blacks Law Dictionary)
"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact"Sondland corroborated the phone call. They were both under oath. There is undoubtedly a phone record.
Really? This is the argument you're making? My gawd.So, you believe nobody could have lied under oath? I don't know if the word corroborated is actually proper.
Again, no direct evidence of anything.
You originally suggested that the fact "Ukraine got the aid" is some kind of exoneration. In contrast, a full timeline of events leading up to that point suggests Trump released the funds either because he got caught, or because he thought he was going to get what he wanted, or some combination of both.
If that's not the case, then Trump is free to give testimony under oath to explain the reason the funding was held in July despite the objections of the DoD, NSC and State, then released in September, only two days after the House announced an investigation into the matter, and only after at least 4 NSC officials had formally reported Trump's conduct to White House lawyers. If there is a legitimate explanation, then it would be trivial for the White House to demonstrate that."suggests" is not proof or direct evidence of anything.
When all of the hearsay evidence is removed, there is no reason for President Donald Trump to testify.
The Democrats have drastically failed to make a case.Again, Congress is not a court, and this is not a trial. It's an impeachment inquiry. None of the evidence needs to be "removed". All testimony submitted so far can, and likely will, be used to determine whether impeachment articles should be drawn up, and if so what they'll be. The House must make its decision based on the evidence available to it. Trump and his colleagues are free to make additional evidence available if they choose.
You too are free to explain. Why did Trump withhold aid to Ukraine then release it only after the House began investigating the matter, and after 4 NSC officials reported it to White House lawyers?And you are free to claim it was for personal reasons, to aid in the 2020 election. Doesn't make it so, but you are free to make the claim.
"And you are free to claim it was for personal reasons, to aid in the 2020 election. Doesn't make it so, but you are free to make the claim"
Indeed I am free to make that claim, and I have outlined that claim clearly in numerous threads, which allows anyone to provide a rebuttal or counterpoint if they choose.
In contrast I have seen repeated suggestions that there is a legitimate reason that Trump withheld security aid to the Ukraine, only releasing it after the House announced an investigation; 4 NSC officials reported the investigations-for-aid arrangement to White House lawyers; and Zelinsky appeared to agree to make the announcements Trump requested.
As yet though, no one making that claim has outlined exatcley what the legitimate reason that explains all of the above actually is. Would you care to share that with me?
If the impeachment goes to the Senate it IS a trial. The federal rules will apply. Hearsay evidence will not have to be admitted. Without it, there really isn't any type of case for the Democrats. All they have is allegations, assumptions, 2nd and 3rd hand information.
Again, during the impeachment inquiry the Republicans established with more than one witness that aid to foreign countries is held up for a variety of reasons. It is something that happens routinely and has for many administrations. It's how business is conducted.
If the point that aid was withheld is a key point, it is one that is easily discredited considering the history of aid being withheld to foreign countries. Why, even Joe Biden did it.And there are limits to executive privilege that should allow them to call Bolton, Mulvaney, Guiliani and Pompeo to testify. And then your second hand knowledge claim, which is laughable with the obstruction, will hold no water.
Joe didn't do it for personal political gain.. A big difference.
That's just not correct. If (or more likely when) the impeachment goes to the Senate it will be a Senate trial, not a court trial. Once again, Congress is not a court. The rules of evidence are not applicable. The only rules applicable to the Senate are the Senate rules, which are decided by the Senate. So there is absolutely no requirement to exclude evidence seen or heard during the impeachment enquiry because of the federal rules of evidence.
You have repeatedly suggested that there is a legitimate reason Trump withheld security aid to the Ukraine and only released it after the House announced an investigation and 4 NSC officials reported the investigations-for-aid arrangement to White House lawyers. Fair enough, what was that legitimate reason?
Again, words matter. Aid to the Ukraine wasn't withheld, it was delayed. Why is any aid delayed?
I suppose with Biden, the Democrats are okay with bribery, quid pro quo, extortion, as long as it is a Democrat who does it.
When an investigation is suggested, but doesn't happen, and aid is still given, Democrats see something wrong.
Again,
1. Ukraine got the aid. They didn't even know it had been delayed.
2. No investigation into the Bidens was conducted by the Ukrainian government.
So, these facts alone show nothing wrong happened. Again, you can't get past these two facts. It is perfectly legal to delay foreign aid for any reason.
As the Republicans established during the impeachment inquiry, aid to many countries gets delayed for many reasons and has for many administrations.
What happened is not uncommon.
What is uncommon is the desire of Democrats suffering from severe cases of TDS to make something out of nothing.
We have, basically, seen the prosecution present their case with select witnesses. I don't think we've seen the whole picture yet. We've seen a very one sided presentation. I'll withhold judgement until we've heard everything.
Sadly, we need to wait to hear the true story from it's inception. Hopefully, the two investigations going on now will clarify a lot.
I honestly don't understand the democrats. They lol so vicious, vindictive and underhanded, at the moment.You're getting just as bad as onus with the ridiculous memes.
Mike has already mentioned this, but it bears repeating:
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland asked the President, "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump answered, "I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to the do the right thing."
They should all pack it up and go home early for Thanksgiving!I would use a tennis reference and say "Game, Set, Match."
Timing matters. Sondland had that conversation after the White House had been notified of the official whistleblower complaint. So they had basically already been caught trading a meeting at the White House for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. And they released the aid two days later, aid that Ukraine had already met the benchmarks for anti-corruption on, so there was no reason it should have been held back.
The argument that claiming you didn't commit a crime, after you got caught committing said crime, really is not a great defense.
How supposedly intelligent people cannot do more research to understand the timeline associated with that conversation really helps explain how they are so easily swayed to believe falsehoods.Exactly. If you watched the hearings, this was crystal clear. Sondland repeatedly stated it was obviously a quid prod quo situation and offered evidence to back it up in the form of texts, whatsAp messages, etc. Then Trumpers grab onto this one statement made by Trump who was clearly just trying to cover his tail after he realized not everyone was going along with his plan. By this standard, any defendant who pleads not guilty is well...not guilty. Why would anyone just randomly offer up " I want no quid pro quo" if that wasn't what was up, lol. But, anyone who doesn't fall in line with Trump doesn't think for themselves???
And this was after the call came to light.
I don't know about Randy, but I love these memes. The Dems keep the meme makers in businesss with abundant material, further strengthening the economy. It's a win-win!
Sure you love these misleading or silly memes as you support a misleading, corrupt administration.
Here is another one I think is great. It's also too close to reality.
LOL, officially in stitches now Mike! Yes, we can't forget about Ms. Pelosi, she hasn't been getting nearly enough face time here of late. She probably appreciates a good meme now and then and who could argue with this one?
Love it and I believe it!
Also, I am looking forward to watching this Christmas classic, as I do every single year. It is the most WONDERFUL time of the year!I agree. A great time for impeachment of a scoundrel. A wonderful time for us all.
Brilliant! Branco’s memes speak volumes, while lefties continue with paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same old, same old, failed nonsense.
And the cons still promote these false memes.
This entire hearing is really silly as we had the evidence for a Trump impeachment long ago. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. Trump is obstructing justice almost daily. That goes back to the Mueller report:
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” --https://www.factcheck/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/
The only reason Trump was not indicted for obstruction is this statement also from the report:
“the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions”
This alone should be enough to impeach Trump by the standards Republicans set with Clinton. They know it. Everyone knows it. This was pointed out here, on HubPages forums, multiple times.
As far as perjury, Trump won't even testify, and, in his obstruction of justice fashion, orders others not to as well. And, back to the Mueller investigation. It can certainly be argued that Trump perjured himself with written answers.
This case was closed long ago. The Republicans just don't have the backbone to do it. But, when Trump is out of office he won't be able to avoid the law, without taking a plane out of the country.I look for little Donnie to refuse to leave the WH. His base will support him then as well.
Yeah. Unfortunately, that's a real possibility. We know some will follow him off any cliff, anytime, anywhere. Americans won't allow that to happen though...not for long anyway.
His base will support him. And that's because the Dems are lacking in agendas that are attractive to the people. It's pretty simple. Fun the Dems did not see this or maybe they did and turned to impeachment. And that is not working out to well...
His base will support him refusing to leave if he is voted out or impeached and convicted as per the Constitution? This is what we were discussing. That would seem his base no longer holds loyalty to America.
They believe and promote Russian conspiracy theories and don't believe our intelligence professionals, yet they are Americans? Really?
It really does seem to come down to that with his most ardent supporters. Having said that, I know people who don't pay a great deal of attention to politics, who say they may vote for him again, that I wouldn't say are anti-American. Some of these people are just going along for the ride with the predominant sentiment of their peers.
"Some of these people are just going along for the ride with the predominant sentiment of their peers."
I find that super scary, when a man such as Trump is so clearly unfit to serve in almost every way: morally, intellectually, and temperamentally.For sure. Things could spiral down a bad path quickly, or we could correct our course. I'm sometimes critical at people who jump on every single thing Trump does and act like its the end of the world. However, if Trump gets another term...yeah, it's scary.
Yeah, Trump has done some scary things. Here is a list, maybe you can tell us how much scarier it could get.
Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
He has created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
Under his Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. He is committed to VOCATIONAL education.
95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
Record number of regulations eliminated.
Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
He reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
He has reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during my first year in office.
Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
Process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces.
Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
Issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.I could get together a list, or copy and past one, of all the bad things Trump has done. I could also argue most of these "good things" as to whether they were really done, or actually good. Most of them are not good by many people's opinion, and you know this. What he's done to our environmental laws alone is ridiculous enough.
However, this is not the point I was making. In fact, you helped make my point very well, with your staunch defense of the laundry list of "good" things done by the all mighty Trump. It reflects just how radical, and how far, his supporters go in defending his EVERY action. That is what is so concerning, and you highlighted it VERY well.Coulda, woulda, shoulda you are so full of it!
Now, that's a mature, reasoned response worthy of Trump's Twitter feed. Just add a couple of typos and you're golden. lol
Right? It's surreal how much this fits right in with what we are discussing. Now, there are a couple individuals here on HubPages who can make some decent arguments as to a few good things Trump has done, whether we agree with them or not. This is not one of them. This is a prime example of that 30%.
It is very factual that his job performance is superior to any previous president. Hard to even think of going backward.
Could you simply supply what Russian conspiracy theories you feel Trump's supporters believe? Not sure what you keep referring to? Perhaps the Durham investigation into the 2016 election. Hopefully, that is your train of thought. It will be fun to check back with you after it is released. You sure put yourself out on limbs...
I can't imagine any scenario where Pres. Trump could refuse to leave the office. I have mental images of everyone from the Secret Service to the Military refusing to support such an effort. His base bedamned, I just don't see the decision-makers that matter supporting such an action.
GAI could see him crying election fraud and attempting to make the Supreme Decide on whether he loses an election. I can definitely see this. And, is our Constitution really equipped to keep him from doing so? I'm not sure. Most Presidents have had the respect to just leave. In the end, I agree that he'd lose, but he could make it very messy.
I agree with this. He truly is manually ill and would believe others will think the same way he does. And I wouldn't be that surprised if about 30% of the country would support him staying in office after he persuaded them the election was rigged.
He won't have to... He is a shoe-in, Might be better to worry about who helped him win, what country. Not sure why you think he should leave half the country think differently than you on the subject. Just my opinion.
All I'm stating he should leave if he loses an election, or is impeached, per the Constitution.
I have to agree, if either dictates he should leave, he certainly should leave. Do you see either happening?
Various people have said it's a possibility. Some of them, like Cohen, know him quite well. I hope that's not the route he chooses.
Trump's own behavior over the last three years is proof enough. If he loses the election, he will refuse to leave the White House.
Instead, he will claim:
- Millions of illegals voted against him
- Democrats rigged the election.
- China rigged the election.
- The Deep State is conducting a coup.
He will call on his supporters to rise up and protect him. These are all claims he has made in the past under lesser circumstances.
If he loses the election, he will have a bigger reason than ever to make these claims again.I think you are kidding? You are are you not? I would assume he will leave if he losses unless it is a very very close race. Which yeah he might request a recount. I could see that.
No, I am not kidding. Has he not made any of the 4 claims I listed?
Yes, he has pretty much said all of what you listed and more. But come on, if he loses he will leave. If not they will carry him out. At any rate, he's not going to lose.
There is enough to worry about impeachment. We can't worry about something that far in the future. Come on you are making me crazy... LOLIf Obama had said the things Trump said about wanting more terms, etc., We would the same people acting like this is no big deal would have their heads exploding. Now, that it's their guy, it's come on, no big deal. I know you can see and understand this fact.
As plenty have stated, no matter how many Trump crimes, or abuses of offices are exposed, the Senate will not convict, so impeachment is not much of a worry...right?I am just offering a reality. Never said I agree with the process, but it is what we are left with. It seems foolish to waste time and money. As always the majority speak the loudest. Is it fair, no... But it's still a reality in America.
I understand your sentiment. But, at the same time, laws and rules must mean something for a nation to hold together. Unfortunately, too many of our elected officials don't care. Trump said he would drain the swamp, but he's making it deeper than it ever was. I see all the facts that would likely result in a conviction in an actual court of law for 97% of Americans.
I am just offering a reality. Never said I agree with the process, but it is what we are left with. It seems foolish to waste time and money. As always the majority speak the loudest. Is it fair, no... But it's still a reality in America.
Is it wise or fair for Congress to proceed with an impeachment that they have no charges that can be proven with actual facts? This is a political scam and one that is a bad or worse then what they are accusing Trump of.
Well, let me help you with this one.
If President Donald Trump is impeached he doesn't leave office. As per the United States Constitution, he will go on trial in the Senate.
Yeah, IF he loses the next election, we'll have a new president so, yeah, he'll HAVE to leave office.I understand the impeachment and conviction process. My fault was assuming I could write impeachment as a shortcut, and not be lectured for semantics. But, hey, such is life when communicating with a certain faction of Trump supporters. Thanks for the help though, lol.
Have to say it... OH MY GOD, what are we dealing with? Won't leave office?
The thing is, the Trumps and people close to them, are the ones saying, and implying this.
Then, we are supposed to take these comments as jokes when they are called out on them. I don't think this type of talk has any place in America. Remember when Obama opponents starting circulating rumors he would not leave office? I do. And, that was based on nothing. This is based on Trump's own Tweets and words at his rallies.
Yep, what are we dealing with?Once he leaves, he is subject to prosecution for the obstruction of justice as well as the fraud in NY for the payments to Cohen. No way he leaves peacefully, the Office of President is the only coverage he has to protect him from joining Roger Stone and Paul Manafort in jail.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” ― Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.
Now we find out Nunes traveled to Europe to get dirt on Biden, and Lev is willing to testify about his and Rudy's Ukraine dealings. Also, Bolton says it's time to speak up. Nunes is refusing to answer questions about his trip.
Now things are getting really interesting....Yes, very interesting. one could say very good feed... But in the end, what will all of this get us? Zero
So you agree Trump is above the law according to the Republicans?
I have mentioned several times I feel Trump asked for the favor to gain info on the Biden's, his motive is unknown. Most likely to gain info to use in the 2020 election. I think it an abuse of power. The point I have been trying to make is that the impeachment outcome is already writing on the wall...I object to our government officials wasting money and time when they pretty much know the Senate will not vote him out of office. Our Government is nothing but a bunch of self-serving power-hungry human beings.
This is much of what has been going on for years. One of the reasons Trump made it into the WH, and will again, due to all this foolishness. The Dems needed to find a candidate to run that could beat Trump. Instead, they have given him ammunition.
And I do not think Trump above the law. I also don't find Obama above the law. Think back to Obama's hot mike statement to the president of Russia. Should have we impeached him? I did not think so, and you know why? We did not know his motive or have evidence he did anything. Because he had not done it yet? Hopefully, you see the correlation. We just have no proof of motive, why Trump asked for the favor... Hopefully, when the Senate has the trial we will learn more. I am willing to wait, I don't feel like being wrong. This will end with the Senate vote, leave a lot of angry citizens. And you know what we as a country don't need that.
I wish more would use common sense and look at Washington representatives straight on for what they are. Not for what they had hoped them to be. This fight is about the opposing parties, neither could care less about the people... That's why I see it ending badly. Nothing about who broke the law, they have been breaking laws for years. Trump is certainly not the first, and won't be the last. he just is no politician and played the system poorly. But in the end, the majority will speak, as they always have, and we are left with their decision. Why prolong it, why pay for it?
For sure. But, you know, who cares about corruption and illegal behavior when Donald Trump is at the helm...after all, he is the chosen one,
Yes, just like Limbaugh claims to be gift from God.
A really turd of a god maybe.
And, Bolton was locked out of his Twitter account for two months after his resignation. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said former national security adviser John Bolton’s “advanced age” could be to blame. So, he forgot his password and that caused him to be unable to get into Twitter for two months? Never mind that Bolton states he had to go to Twitter to unlock it.
If he were locked out for legitimate reasons, why lie about it? There's A LOT more going on here than any of us know.
That Nunes traveled to Ukraine is an accusation. Nothing has been proven. So, there is not proof of this and only an accusation. You need to realize an accusation is not the same thing as proof.
Yet, in another thread, you are taking accusations and running around the world and back with them, lol. I guess it just depends on who is accused.
"I'm hoping even the people on the left realize altering the warrant application for the FISA warrant is wrong. I hope they realize this really causes problems for the FBI and all those involved. I'm hoping they can comprehend how serious this is when it comes to the OBAMA era of spying on the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign."It's not in conservative nature to actually follow the things you complain about. C'mon Hardsun, we all know this.
"Attorney General William Barr told lawmakers two months ago that he was conducting his own examination of whether the government improperly “spied” on Trump’s campaign, at least the third examination by the department of its conduct around the 2016 election."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 769752002/So? Trump's sent his lackey to investigate his conspiracy theory. Big news? Yet the mountain of evidence against Trump is irrelevant. Thanks again for proving my point.
The bottom line, President Donald Trump's campaign was spied on by the FBI. The main issues is whether it is considered "proper" or "Improper."
Considering the FISA warrant used to justify it has been proven bogus and it is possible the FISA warrant application could have been intentionally altered.
Are you able to comprehend how wrong that is to do to a presidential candidate?Are you able to comprehend the hypocritical nature of telling everyone about how they are convicting Trump before a trial, yet you are convinced of some wrong doing here based upon allegations, which by my understanding, only refer to getting a warrant that would have likely been approved at any rate?
If the FBI agent did something wrong, I hope he's held accountable. This is a fly on an elephants but compared to the Trump's people allegations, and convictions.
I've noticed you growing more and more disrespectful with your comments Mike. You also know I can be disrespectful right back, and your comments don't phase me, so maybe you should reel in the name calling a bit, or you will be opining again about how people cannot carry on civil conversations after you personally attack them. Take it easy bub.Be as disrespectful to me as you desire. I can take it. Say whatever you want.
I grew up in a time where we were taught "Sticks and stones can break my bones but word will never hurt me."
Think about it.
Being this sensitive, do you really believe you're ready to play in the tall weed with the big dogs?You cried about people not being able to hold civil conversations last time I got disrespectful there Mike. I'll spare you the anguish. You can be keyboard tough. I don't think you're much older than me , and I've been in max security prison so...whoop de do.
I'd prefer to have adult conversations.Gotta hand I to you, Mike, you're one of the more inadvertently entertaining posters here.
I agree with Hard Sun, if there was wrongdoing, it should be appropriately addressed. I also agree it's a fly on an elephant' s butt (love that phrase) compared to the many transgressions of this administration.Ha ha. I agree about Mike. I also like the elephant's butt phrase. However, it makes a lot more sense with "butt" as opposed to "but" as I typed it though.
Oops, I'm the Typo Queen" since my vision went bad.
Due to the intense emotional sensitivities of those on this thread, I will withhold further comment.
The level of knowledge and understanding is also lacking and quickly making this boring.
The FISA warrant has definitely not be proven bogus, that's an outright lie. And second, it wasn't done to a candidate, that's another ridiculous lie. It was done to someone who had left his campaign.
Do you ever get tired of spewing these amazing lies?He emulates his leader Don, as do many of his defenders.
Okay tsadjatkko, now I understand just how much you really did make my point. You seriously copied that list straight from whitehouse.gov, lol.
Wow. You seriously don't understand that using Trump's own propaganda might be kind of biased? It might just stretch the truth a bit? "My administration" lol...with all the Trump bravado. I voted for Obama twice, I would have never had the gall to use his own propaganda to support how great he is. And, Trump is the king of salesmanship, so it comes off as even more outrageous. Seriously..take a step back and look at how this comes off, especially in the context of a discussion on just how far up Trump's rump some of his supporters are. There's no reasoning here. There's no questioning. That is exactly what is scary.
What propaganda? Can you refute any of these accomplishments? No you can’t or you would, so you simply call facts propaganda and hope the morons out there agree with you out of blind hatred but you are fooling no one with a moral compass. This explains what the impeachment is about.
https://youtu.be/X94mysRhozYhttps://www.good.is/articles/obamas-ach … -in-office
28 Of Barack Obama’s Greatest Achievements As President Of The United States
Refute these point by point. Do you see the randomness of your question, and the desperate need to defend and show your loyalty to Trump? The discussion is about impeachment, Trump's temperament, his loyal followers following him off a cliff,etc. There is no reason for me to do a policy homework assignment for you.
Besides many of the points are so vague and opinionated, they are essentially meaningless. "Record number of regulations, keeping Guantanamo Bay, move embassy to Jerusalem, building a wall etc. Many of these things are simply not good by many people's standards. So, even disregarding the lies, half truths, and entirely unproven assertions there's not many facts here to be argued. Do you see? No, I'm sure you don't.
Related Discussions
- 39
More evidence that Trump's intention was personal gain
by Don W 4 years ago
David Holmes has provided evidence that indicates Trump's motives for requesting the leader of Ukraine investigate Biden's son:"An official from the United States Embassy in Kiev confirmed to House impeachment investigators on Friday that he had overheard a call between President Trump and a...
- 57
Will We See Witnesses or Not ?
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
There have been deals floating around on "witness trades" - the Democrats want Bolton and the Republicans want Hunter Biden. The Democrats want Mulvaney and the Republicans want Eric Ciarmella. The list continues, but it's not necessary to list everyone.The bottom line is that...
- 48
Would The Current Senate Impeach President Trump
by Sharlee 4 years ago
Would the current Senate vote to Impeach President Trump? I would like to hear your thoughts, please share.
- 104
Innocent Until Proven Guilty - Unless You Are President Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
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...
- 107
President Trump To Call Pelosi's Bluff
by Sharlee 5 years ago
Today President Trump put out a statement that unless a vote is taken on the impeachment inquiry the White House will not cooperate with any of the impeachment congressional investigations. Any thoughts?
- 52
Michael Flynn Calls for President Trump to Declare Martial Law
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Former National Security Adviser has called for President Trump to suspend the Constitution and call for limited martial law in order to re-run the election that would be overseen by the military due to the massive election fraud.Do you agree with General Flynn?Clearly, President Trump believes...