Today we witnessed Nacey Pelosi, and Jerry Nader as well as every Dem that stood and spoke lying in "Our House". They spoke of Founding Father "... Were our Founding Fathers known for lying in Our House? Each Democrat that spoke in this hearing quoted lie after lie, none of their allegations have in any respect been proven as true, with any form of factual evidence. Only hearsay from their hand-picked witnesses.
I have become tired and discussed with an impeachment that is built on lies, and how many of our citizens have bought into such a blatant scam a cheap Democratic grift... Yes, most have come to realize the Dems are known for their dirty politicking. However, this is inexcusable. Hopefully, this attempted overthrow of a duly elected president will work to awaken many American's to see how corrupt the Democrats have become, due to not excepting the will of the people.
Today the Dems have attempted to completely disregard the Constitution. They have further worked to divide the country.
I hope to hear other's opinions om what was witnessed today in Our House... I ask if you support this impeachment of a president in light of no factual evidence.
I also think it a waste of time to list any evidence that would be considered secondhand or hearsay. It would only serve to be a form of fodder at this point. We here at HP have argued the hearsay evidence at great length.
Today was a sobering day... Like no other day have I entertained the thought that our society is very apparently flawed. For anyone to justify this kind of Governing is not only sad, but it's also frightening.
Pelosi must go. It is not fair that she thinks she has the luxury of waiting to send the articles to Senate until things are favorable there.
She has wasted our time with this trial. She has lavishly indulged in hatred, money and time. Talk about high on the H O G.
... and we sit around in our humble abodes watching her on TV or listening to her on the radio, enduring the thoughts of her disheveled brain and the strange words she manages to croak out,
day after dreadful day.
How I see it, this was a political ploy. Congress spoke time to send it to the Senate for a trial. I have to say the Dems really outdid themselves this time.
I hope Trump demands a trial and goes over Mitch's head if need be. We need this settled once and for all.
Saw a meme yesterday (and yes, I know what 99.999% of memes are worth) about this. It sparked a small thought (the only kind I have any more) and I went looking.
Try as I might I can find no reference in our Constitution that the Senate must be notified, with cheers, drumrolls and fireworks, that the House has impeached. In other words, a Senate trial can begin anytime after impeachment...which happened last night. No fancy fanfare or "delivery of the articles of impeachment" needed.
I have zero idea if this is actually true, but could find nothing in the Constitution about the necessity of such a delivery. Is it possible that this meme was actually correct?
I just checked the Constitution as well and found no reference to executive privilege. Guess McGahn should have testified when he was subpoenaed.
"The term “executive privilege” is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it’s considered an implied power based on the separation of powers laid out in Article II, which is meant to make sure one branch of government doesn’t become all-powerful; executive privilege is one way the legislative branch’s power over the executive is limited."
Oh it's a "presumed power" and really not a privilege then? I've heard the word "presume" is a bad thing from the Right where Sondland's testimony is concerned.
But bless your heart and have a nice day, Mike.
Randy, thank you for putting your lack of knowledge of the English language on display.
The word was not "presumed" the word was "implied." It is a legal concept that goes back to English common law. So, your lack of knowledge the law as well as the English language makes your responses quite funny.
Bless your heart Randy and I'm sure some studying up on the law and the English language would take away the intense humor found in your responses.
Bless your heart!
You're apparently never sure about anything, Joey. You claim you don't support Donnie, but you prove otherwise by your silly memes. Make a stand somewhere , Joey!
No thanks, I rather enjoy your confusion, Joey.
Mike, Soundland has been accused by the Right of assuming a "quid pro quo" as part of their defense of Trump. You need to get off of your imaginary high horse and bone up a bit on the impeachment hearings. DUH!
Implied...presumed, neither are words of certainty, Mike. One is no better than the other as far as being factual determinations.
Its not over. The can of w o r m s has been opened.
Maybe Nancy doesn't want the wiggly gross creatures exposed.
It should with all the Dems kicking their feet, now Pelosi is unsure if she will send it to the Senate? As I said we need a trial. The Congress spoke time for this to go to the Senate. It appears she is waking up to what a mess this is going o be, for all involved.
The House of Representatives has used the mechanism of impeachment as a remedy to address misconduct by a sitting president. The use of that mechanism is fully within its constitutional authority.
Which specific part of the Constitution do you feel has been disregarded?
A very easy question to answer. Congresses men and women lying in the "Peoples House". They brought about the impeachment of a president without any proven crime. Congressperson after congressperson offered their statement as a matter of fact as if proof was available to prove their allegations. I see this as a disgrace. I would have no problem if any of these statements were factual, proven o be true.
I realize many believe these accusations and have become hellbent on looking at a hand full of innuendo as facts. I suggest to those have a good look at the evidence, a good look. None are factual. The information is all second hand, opinion. Since when did we in America condemn our citizens on second hand or hearsay? Is this acceptable to you?
What we have now is n impeachment of a president, with no crime that was conclusively proven. I certainly feel this was a total disregard for our Constitution. And I for one am disgusted and ashamed at what now will go into our history. It will show our Congress chose to disregard the Constitution to make an attempt to disrespect an election.
This close to an election you can bet the people will be heard. And the sad part some will be heard due to simple hate. Some Republicans out of hate for being disrespected. Some Dems will vote due to purely hating the president.
This impeachment has only made the divide deeper...
The entire case for impeachment is summarized in the Judiciary committee's Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded … report.pdf
Which specific piece of evidence do you believe Representatives in the House lied about?
In terms of impeaching without a crime. Impeachment is not intended to be a criminal process, but a political one. It's not dependent on someone breaking statute laws. We know that because the founders said so in their discussions about it at the time the process was established.
In terms of the evidence not proving the case. You're entitled to your interpretation. My own interpretation is that the evidence indicates Trump more likely than not abused his authority for personal political gain. I believe that warrants, as a minimum, the Senate deciding if he should be removed from office.
So while you may disagree with the House's decision to impeach, that's irrelevant to whether it has acted within its constitutional authority. It has.
I do not except one bit of the evidence the Congress based this impeachment on. There is not one bit of proof. They used nothing but opinions of witnesses.
Now the Dems have chosen to not at this point hand to the Senate. This is is disgusting and makes our Government look foolish.
I can accept that people have different interpretations of evidence. But the suggestion there is no evidence to support the allegations that Trump abused his authority for personal political gain and obstructed Congress, is beyond reason, and I can't accept it as a valid argument.
Donald Trump has every opportunity now to fully defend himself in a Senate trial. If he chooses not to do that in the most comprehensive way possible, but instead relies on the favor of a friendly Senate, that's his choice, but people will be free to infer from that what they will. Either way, like it or not, the House has acted fully within its Constitutional authority.
I am curious about what you feel is factual evidence that has come out of the impeachment inquiry? Could you offer one piece of factual evidence that could support either article of impeachment? I realize this thread has beaten this subject to death, but no one actually puts up factual evidence only what the media and the Dem Congress have been stating as a matter a fact crimes, but they give no factual evidence.
I know Dems have claimed Trump has told many on his cabinet they could not testify, I also have come to realize he did not use executive privilege as of yet to stop them. So all involved have chosen to ignore subpoenas. This is their individual prerogative. Plus I have not really found evidence that any of these persons have said or made statements to why they would not testify? So I ask why would Trump be at fault or obstruction Congress. Does it seem Congress is sort of assuming without proof that it's Trump that is just verbally making them not respect a Congressional subpoena?
This is just one problem with Congress's case that Trump is responsible for obstructing Congress.
Just my opinion, but I have looked at all the allegations, as well as listen to the proceeding. Congress just has not offered any kind of facts. Just the words and opinions from others.
"I realize this thread has beaten this subject to death, but no one actually puts up factual evidence only what the media and the Dem Congress have been stating as a matter a fact crimes, but they give no factual evidence."
Sorry, but there is factual evidence - that being that Trump asked for an investigation of Biden and the libs know that his motive was to affect the next election. Their secret, long range, no contact mind reading invention told them so! 224 Representatives agree that there is no reasonable doubt (that 190 or so found reasonable doubt shall be ignored as they do not have access to this marvelous machine).
Do you have an alternate reason for Trump to single out Biden?
I can't find any factual evidence neither. It will be interesting to see ho the Dems in Congress will handle this mess?
With the cat out of the bag, so to say on the Biden's, we are now left with the desire to know what went down. I certainly would not want Biden to be a candidate for president if he is guilty of hat I think he may be.
It's exactly what Congress accused Trump with doing. I should say one of the first allegations that they found just would not stick.
I am awaiting "Don's" response to my question. I would like to learn just hat evidence he has to offer that would not be considered just someone's opinion?
How about Trump standing on the White House lawn admitting he demanded an investigation into the Bidens as well as encouraging one from China right after it?
Trump very clearly asked the President of Ukraine to investigate very clearly on the July phone call. What some choose to ignore in the call is the full context of the complete call. For instance here is the comment that was mentioned time after time in the inquiry
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."
I heard this statement frequently in the impeachment inquiry. I did not once hear the sentences that directly followed that statement
"There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."
Trump made it very clear to Zelinsky that he felt he Zelinsky had kept some of the same corrupt people that were thought to be corrupt. Trump had the authority to request this investigation, he actually told Zelinsky he would have AG Barr call him. The first part of the call Trump spoke of how other countries were not doing as much as they could for Ukraine. Zelinsky at one point tells Trump he is "trying to drain the swamp in his country. ( AG Barr never called Zelinsky). We have no idea if Trump changed his mind after the conversation, we don't know if he asks Barr to call Zelinsky, Barr claims he was not asked to make that call. So is Barr lying?
"President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government."
It's too bad the phone call is being quoted in bits and pieces, and not looked at for actual conversations full content, and ongoing context.
It seems rather simple. One other thing I noted, the document that the WH had to provide to halt the aid to Ukrain was never permitted in the open inquiry. I would like to have a look at what the President's concerns were, in writing per-protocol that halted that aid. Did he site he was concerned about corruption? This document is a clear piece of factual evidence. The only one I can see that would be a fact.
In regards to asking China to do an investigation into the Biden's. Trump certainly did not ask or requestChina to do an investigation. He never claimed to demand the Ukrainian investigation? Not sure he broke any law other than giving his opinion, on what China could do. he certainly did not request China to do an investigation. Trump used the word "should investigate" and If I were them".and "if it were me". Words matter, context matters.
Trump's statement --- "China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine," Trump said. "So I would say that President Zelensky if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens."
I read the phone call transcript the day it was released and saw nothing that I would find out of the ordinary. I was surprised the president made the request himself to investigate the Biden's, certainly would have been better to let Barr handle the request. I don't think this is in any respect an impeachable offense.
And one only has to read the transcript in full to see a progression of conversation in regards to possible corruption concerns on the part of the presidents. One can recognize Zelinsky making attempts to alleviate President Trump's concerns.
If this ever makes it to the Senate , the phone call transcript just may speak volumes, along with the WH document that was provided to halt the aid.
So Valeant, I have to say I find your example of evidence very flawed, non - factual. I have provided Trump's direct quotes, Read the words he used, Words matter, context matters. To many are reading in what they want to hear, instead of what they need to her, The direct quote.
So Valeant, I have to say I find your example of evidence very flawed, non - factual.
Really? Then why the heck is Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Crowdstrike, a company based in Sunnyvale, California? This isn't corruption being looked into, it's Trump asking Zelensky to investigate conspiracy theories, ones that will assist him and his allies that helped to elect him.
And why, when you refer to the call, do you leave out the sentence prior to Trump asking for that favor - where Zelensky is directly asking about Javelin missiles, and then Trump says he wants a favor though. Then 90 minutes later, the White House (via Michael Duffey) freezes the aid and asks not to let word get out that they have done so. Not telling Congress actually violates another law which is part of the abuse claim.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trum … s-illegal/
And you come on here and parrot the same debunked theory that Trump asking about Crowdstrike is normal, while the rest of us can see it's a clear attempt by Trump to help Russia escape culpability for the 2016 election interference. If you're going to fight to help promote the interest of the United States' enemies, at least understand that's what you're doing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 56666.html
"And you come on here and parrot the same debunked theory that Trump asking about Crowdstrike is normal, while the rest of us can see it's a clear attempt by Trump to help Russia escape culpability for the 2016 election interference. If you're going to fight to help promote the interest of the United States' enemies, at least understand that's what you're doing."
"And you come on here and parrot the same debunked theory that Trump asking about Crowdstrike is normal,"
I did not in any respect give an opinion on whether I felt it normal for Trump to ask Zelinsky to investigate CrowdStrike or the Biden? In fact, I stated Trump would have done better to have Barr handle the request. You re either being argumentative or did not ready comment.
I have no idea why Trump asked Zelinsky o investigate CrowdStrike? He did not in any respect elaborate on why he felt why CowdSrike needed to be investigated. I certainly am not going t pretend I know why Trump made the request or try to guess why he made the request. You certainly did come up with an unproven scenario, now didn't you? --- "the rest of us can see it's a clear attempt by Trump to help Russia escape culpability for the 2016 election interference."
This kind of statement sits poorly with me. It seems to show a very bias thought process. You reading into a conversation to hear what you hope to hear.
Not sure why you responded to my comment? You deflected, you did not address my point. The point was simply to point out the entire transcript neede to be read in it entirely to determine context. It seems many made a word game of it, picking and choosing words to suit their narrative. It is very clear you played that very game.
Seem's many just read a comment and read into it whatever suits their purpose. This to me is just odd. It does confirm many of my theories in regard to liberals. Hard to conduct a discussion with this type.
I certainly did not in any respect try to debunk anything in regards to CrowdStrike. Hopefully, Val will respond and provide one of my statements that made him feel I was debunking anything in regards to Crowdstrike?
I have noted something very interesting here at HP chat... It well seems some here when at a loss for defending a given subject, they just pretty much become accusing, and much of the time the accusation is based on a mistruth. Such as in the case of me being accused of defending Trump asking Zelinsky to investigate Crowdstrike.
What do you think Biden is guilty of, Shar? I've asked others on your side, but as yet, no response.
Randy, I have no idea if the Biden's are guilty of anything. I would say the smoke is heavy around the Biden's. It seems pretty odd that Hunter was on the board of companies in Ukraine and China, the two nations that Joe Biden was overseeing American policy toward.
He puts his pants on the same way Trump does. As I said now the cat is out of the bag. This needs to be looked at, it seems we should be accustom to accusing someone of a crime skrewing up their lives and then digging around for proof of a crime. maybe it's time to just go back to innocent until found guilty.
I will not condemn the Bidens of any crime without factual proof. Hopefully, they are innocent of any crime. Washington is getting to look like the wild west or the Salem witch trials.
Shar, see what I mean? You have no clue as to what Hunter or Joe is supposed to have done wrong in the Ukraine. This BS is just that. You aren't concerned in the least by Ivanka or Jerrod getting special treatment--Ivanka used an unsecured phone for transmitting classified info and Jerrod secured a 100 year lease from Qatar for the losing 666 building.
Take the high road, will ya?
Not sure why you feel I have anything against the Biden's. I feel the allegations need to be looked at. I feel this way due to if the allegations are not looked at and an explanation is given to why Hunter Biden was on the board of two foreign businesses. I have no idea if they did anything and have no intention of arguing about if they did anything. Like I said there is smoke no fire. Let m repeat --
I will not condemn the Bidens of any crime without factual proof. Hopefully, they are innocent of any crime. Washington is getting to look like the wild west or the Salem witch trials.
I am not going to accuse the Biden's of anything. I realize what they are being accused of, I am just not willing to impugn their names over unproven allegations.
Not sure you understood the point I was trying to make? I am not willing to accuse anybody of a crime without some form of factual evidence. I have not seen any factual evidence the Biden's have broken any laws.
You're correct in that Trump hasn't claimed EP, but that doesn't stop him from sending the correct documents to the House. The house has oversight over the Executive office, so how can you say he hasn't obstructed their job of doing so?
In regards to the documents the Congress hoped to get, I have not been able to find any info on what they pertain too? I was surprised last week to hear Trump had not used EP to stop many from testifying. In fact, it was widely reported weeks back he did use EP?
I would summarize the Congress could go to court and make their point for the need to talk to the people that refused to show up. They are all in contempt of Congress. This certainly is a mess.
I asked two questions to clarify what specific part of the Constitution you are referring to in your thread title. In response, you alleged that Representatives in the House lied about the evidence, but offered no evidence to support that accusation.
I asked, "which specific piece of evidence do you believe Representatives in the House lied about?" You replied: "I do not except (sic) one bit of the evidence the Congress based this impeachment on."
I understand that to mean you don't accept as valid any of the information presented throughout the course of the entire impeachment inquiry, regardless of the source.
Unless I have misunderstood you, I believe that opinion is beyond reason, so I don't think trying to have a reasonable discussion about it with you would be a fruitful exercise. Therefore I'll humbly decline your request for a post-mortem of the evidence.
If you have any evidence to support specific allegations against any Representatives you believe lied, feel free to share that. If not, I'll leave you with your own thoughts.
I have added Pelosi's address to Congress in regards to allegations. There is not one factual statement in that long address. Please point out one that you find any form of factual evidence to back up her allegations.
The entire address offered nothing but unproven accusations. This is why she is in the position she is in today. She can offer no proof in a Senate trial before Chief Justice Roberts. She looks foolish as does this entire impeachment process.
please just take one of her statements and set forth factual proof, not he or she said... My god wakes up to the fact you are being fed words that mean nothing in reality.
Hopefully, I have not offended you? Put I have become so tired of debating something so blatantly obvious.
Congress has made fool of themselves. And I see this as shameful politicking to an extent we have never witnessed.
Don, Again, I am curious about what you feel is factual evidence that has come out of the impeachment inquiry? Could you offer one piece of factual evidence that could support either article of impeachment?
Could you provide one bit of evidence and provide an actual fact to prove it. Please don't bother if the info is an opinion or hearsay.
I have so far not been able to get anyone to provide any facts, and back them up. Only opinion and secondhand evidence.
The only part of the constitution that Democrats seem to be in favor of is the impeachment part. Except when it's against one of their own.
Yes, I agree.. And now that the Dem's have set precedence the Dems at some point will taste their newly found ass-backward justice. Condemn and then look for a crime. Search for facts, and hope they come up with one, yes even one. They look like complete fools now deciding to choose not to pass it on to the Senate. Guess, they hope we all just forget the circus now that they have pulled up the tent. My God what next?
You're acting as if we got to hear from some very important fact witnesses, Bolt etc. and now you allege there was nothing there?
I certainly think those distinguished envoys, not counting Trump's bought guy, gave plenty of evidence the "drug deal" was going on. You simply want it to be swept under the rug in the Senate.
Kind of points out just how political this is, doesn't it? It's not about breaking the law or ruining the Constitution: it's about growing power in Congress, specifically in the Democratic party.
But I posted elsewhere, the impeachment is done. Does the Senate have to wait until they get a piece of paper from the House in order to prosecute? I can't find anything in the Constitution where it outlines the procedure for removing the president and includes that particular point.
Nor can I find anything in the Constitution where the trial has to be conducted according to rules set up by the House; it is the Senate's game now, no longer that of the House. Pelosi is mad because Trump "obstructed" her House, now she's doing the same thing by denying the Senate their prerogatives in running a trial.
I heard an interview Lindsey Graham gave on Bret Baier this evening. Graham claimed he spoke with the president, and that Trump is demanding his day in court. I wonder if he has the power to push a trial?
In regards to Pelosi, she will get whatever the Senate rules/laws dictate she will get, and she knew that going into this "impeachment without a cause..." I have to say, the Dem's have really gone too far with this crazy politicking ploy. One has to only wonder why they ever thought they would get away with this? It's like they are running head-on into a train.
Christian Today published an editorial stating Trump must be removed from office for his actions. The magazine founded by the beloved Billy Graham is the first to decry Trump's obvious transgressions.
Dammit, even the thumpers are turning on him!
I have read the article (opinion piece) by Mark Galli
He does not quote Billy Graham or actually anyone else, which is the professional thing to do when writing an opinion piece.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 … ffice.html
Billy Graham's son immediately DENOUNCED the opinion article in question.
Billy Graham's son condemned the opinion editorial that CT posted...
"Billy Graham's son, Franklin, who has aligned himself with Trump, condemned the editorial, saying, “My father would be embarrassed. It is not going to change anybody’s mind about Trump. There’s a liberal element within the evangelical movement. Christianity Today represents that.”
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/c … trump.html
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 … ffice.html
Christians tend to look past flaws, and consider deeds more important. feeling human flaws can be repaired.
The election will be all telling.
You have brought up an interesting subject. I guess when it comes to Christians, Trump could lose some of that base. Not because of the impeachment, but because of his off cruel remark he made in regards to Debbie Dingell. So, cruel, it would be hard to excuse such a statement. In my circle, it has shaken some. Let's face it we have become somewhat jaded to Trump, comments. This one projected cruelty. I watched the rally, and one could hear the crowd did not approve of his statement. Our local Detroit media have really made sure to report it frequently.
We clearly live in alternate realities. Your definition of a fact is different from mine as is your definition of a crime. You are being exposed, on a daily basis, to information that forms your views very differently from mine. It has become apparent that as long as we are not operating from the same set of definitions, we cannot communicate, much like if we were aliens from different planets.
During testimony, a quid pro quo was confirmed between the POTUS and Ukraine. If Ukraine investigated Joe Biden and his son, Trump's political opponent, they would receive military aid.
Given how this transgression has been viewed, I truly fear the excesses future Presidents will see as "legal", "ethical", and "moral". If you think there will never be another Democrat in the White House, then you are very short-sighted. So when you are typing away on these forums about that President breaking the law in some way, remember that the precedent was set during the Trump administration for this, and many other things.
As every writer knows, perspective is everything. Trump has always reaped what he sows. Always. Think about it. Jesus talked about it. Its in the bible. None this is a surprise. He whines, you moan - no matter how guilty or inappropriate he may be about whatever. Its getting so old.
You: "Yes, most have come to realize the Dems are known for their dirty politicking."
Me: "Yes, most have come to realize the GOP are known for their dirty politicking."
Reality: Neither party has any honor. Everything is about the almighty dollar. Both parties believe in that and try to proliferate it in their own disparate ways.
Its just one of the many things that keeps us fighting. Its meant to.
You: "...will work to awaken many American's to see how corrupt the Democrats have become, due to not excepting the will of the people."
Me: "...will work to awaken many American's to see how corrupt the have Republicans have become, due to not excepting the will of the people." (This sounds really familiar - oh yeah, it was SO TRUE when Obama was in office, ha!)
Reality: Will of the people, will of the people... your will and the will of a minority of Americans does not represent the will of the people - it only represents a portion of them (many of whom are now going back to voting for their original liberal hero, Bernie, this time around).
There are a LOT of people out there with seriously screwed-up heads on both sides of the extremes. I just spent 20 hours on a greyhound bus. Trust me, LOTS of explosive individuals out there - often surrounding Trump/Fox & Friends favorite talking points.
You: "Today the Dems have attempted to completely disregard the Constitution. They have further worked to divide the country."
Me: "Today the GOP have attempted to completely disregard the Constitution. They have further worked to divide the country."
Reality: Where do I start? How about with a re-read of 'Neither party has any honor' above?
I'm not saying that the Dems 'don't have it in' for Trump or that they don't go overboard sometimes - but again, Trump reaps what he sows (that's in the bible, too). He has NEVER tried to unite this country. He's said the words a couple times, but they weren't even SORT of believable - and he has proven himself over and over again in that regard.
You see his divisive, embolding behavior on Twitter or wherever as heroic. I see it as potentially change-enabling if it wasn't so incredibly harmful and corrosive.
To be fair, I had really hoped that Trump would give the Dems a good wake-up call with regards to 'what the people want'. Obviously, most of us don't want a ''free everything' Bernie or Warren agenda, either - and yet, that may be the only alternative we have aside from Trump - if he manages to turn enough Americans [who vote] off.
The extreme opposing pendulum swing would be engaged again. What a shocker. And what another waste of another four to eight years of this ridiculous arguing and accomplishing nothing.
"I ask if you support this impeachment of a president in light of no factual evidence."
I'm not sure how much more factual it needs to be. By now, we have all read that semi-incriminating transcript for ourselves - and Trump has admitted he did what the Dems think he did; what's-his-name told us to 'get over it'. (Just because he keeps insisting that 'its perfect' doesn't mean diddly squat coming from him.)
- and its just one more dumb thing on top of so many others that you all just casually pass off in your DOUBLE STANDARD way.
I can't say this enough: If Obama had remotely acted the way Trump has from the beginning, he would have never made it through four years of the presidency, much less eight.
It really is amazing that Trump has lasted this long. While I personally wish they would just have tossed this impeachment issue into the pile - its not going to go away whining about it, now.
I would know. My whining about Trump has never done a thing to make him go away yet, LoL!
Don't worry, this very sad day is done.
For 2020, it will depend on the will of the people who VOTE. We'll see just how much of 'the majority' actually appreciate Trump's exceptional and very special form of Presidictator-type of governing.
PS: I totally agree with Trump on at least one thing ( a few, actually) - and that is that liberal straws are stupid! They can make a paper cup that doesn't fall apart with a drink in it; but they can't make a decent paper straw to replace the plastic ones? *sigh*
Have you both let Mitch know you'd like to hear from Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani and Mulvaney? Their testimony under oath would surely corroborate Trump's grave concern about corruption in Ukraine and fully expose Pelosi, Schiff, and the Democrats for the disgusting liars they are.
I wonder why Mitch is reluctant to do so? Is it because he is too nice?You should let him know he must allow these men to testify under oath and rid President Trump of these baseless charges once and for all so he can focus on Making America Great Again.
I am glad you brought up the subject of Bolton and Pompeo. yesterday while Republicans spoke in the House a couple brought up the fact Trump had not sited executive privilege on anyone as of yet? And that the Congress had the path to ask the courts to make any and all the witnesses appear, and the Congress had not done this?
I have shared my opinion on a Senate trial. I feel we are all entitled to a full trial with Chief Justice as overseer to protect the
Believe it or not, I am looking for the truth, facts. This has gone too far and needs to be fully exposed, that goes for the Biden allegations. It would be wonderful to have a trial where both sides have their witnesses testify.
And yes one would think Trump would certainly want his cabinet members called to clear his name. I am watching closely to see how he handles this. I have contacted him with my thoughts at the links below.
I think it's the time that this kind of politicking is brought o an end. The Congress spoke loudly they wanted a trial, Nacey needs o to pass this on to the Senate, otherwise, I look at it as nothing but an expensive process that was a political ploy.
https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public … ontactForm
Glad to see you want to finally get down to the truth. Those career diplomats and intelligence professionals will get their due for lying under oath during the impeachment hearings....
I have always wanted the truth. Yes, I lean toward solid facts, and hopefully, we will all get down to factual evidence one way or the other. I call it as I see it. But I do need facts before condemning anyone. I look forward to having a trial, hopefully it will add facts to this process. We have lots of smoke, and we need to get to the truth. Because when there is this much smoke we need to either clear the smoke or see the fire.
Why do you suppose Trump didn't ask Zelinsky to investigate Pizzagate?
I would think there was no actual money to follow. Like in the case of Hunter and Joe. Pizzagate was a bit of bad fake news. LOL However, in the case of Biden's physical evidence, it does present a problem. Business records, bank records, IRS records. As a rule, the money trail is what gets one in hot water.
I don't know where you're coming from? I assumed from your previous comments you would look forward to an impeachment trial? You have had to realize what was ahead in the Senate. This is the reason I was against the impeachment in the first place, it would end up just as it has.
If Trump exonerated himself one side will no be satisfied. You admit in your comment that you feel Trump's witnesses will lie under oath.
So once again we have spent money, expended time, and are at the same place.
I have always wanted to get to the truth, but I also knew, in the end, we would end up half believing it half not.
Where do we go from here?
I hope we have a trial, as I said we would at least have Supreme Court Justice overseeing the mess...
If these testimonies are important can you explain why the House didn't do more, within their legal courses, to compel testimony?
McConnell made a good point. If the House does sloppy work why is the Senate responsible for cleaning up their mess?
I'd like to hear the truth,across the board, but I've never seen Washington hold any wrong doers accountable so it is just a waste of time and money, in the end.
The House cried wolf too many times and each was found to be a politically motivated lie. Now, without compelling proof, they've cried wolf again. You may not see the pattern, but it doesn't escape everyone.
Because they knew it would not be resolved in the courts in a timely manner. The McGhan subpoena from way back when (don't feel like looking it up) is still in the courts. A lower court recently ruled that he must comply with the subpoena because "presidents are not kings" but, of course, it will be appealed, causing further delay.
Peterstreep, if you catch this thread, this is an example of one of the dumb and insulting ones that I spoke of. No value here.
And yet, it perfectly explains how Trump supporters get to the alternate reality they currently live within.
In the 90's the GOP impeached a president for having consensual sex with another adult. The charges in this case are only in dispute if you've drunk too much of the Koolade. God help us.
It's a silly obvious game they're playing, Kate. It's called Beat the Donald. You win when you can be more dishonest, arrogant, or illiterate than the actual person the game is named for.
We have some real contenders on these forums.
KG, I think if you read the articles of impeachment of Bill Clinton you would not find any charge related a president having sex with a white house intern in the White House. You would find a charge of grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice. Knowledge is power and fact do matter.
Big difference, Mike. Clinton got a BJ in the WH and Trump used American taxpayer money to push a non-US policy extortion scheme in Ukraine to get himself reelected. Can you really decide which is worse, Mike? I seriously doubt it...
Strangely, without facts to back that claim, you guys continue to run with it.
Deja vu? It's funny how all democrats appear to have become conspiracy theorists.
Personally, I like the reference to a BJ in the white house, which had about as much relevance to Clinton's impeachment as the way he parts his hair or the color of his tie, and then wants to compare it to the severity of an unproven, exaggerated and simply assumed extortion scheme.
It's called "spin" and "deflection"; anything to avoid continuing a losing discussion.
Well, if I had the current facts to work with and I was arguing the liberal side...I'd be scrambling to deflect, also. Their 'defense' has been a joke for some time.
Do you have inside info which clears Trump, Dan? Trump doesn't or he would be pleased to provide it. Now give a believable excuse for why he doesn't...if you can.
You didn't watch Trump being impeached? No wonder you're confused.
Randy, I watched. And yes the Dem's presented witnesses with their opinions on the "phone call". there is no arguing that. However, an opinion of what others feel trump meant or did not mean can not be considered as facts to prove the two articles he has been charged with.
Keep in mind there are only two charges --- One article accuses him of abuse of power, the other of obstructing Congress. These are based on the phone call to Zelinsky, and the fact the White House would not release the documents the Congress wanted during the inquiry.
The witnesses have set forth no evidence that the president abused his power. He also had a right to ask for Zelinsky to help investigate any wrongdoing he felt needed looking into. He had the right to use the protocol to halt aid to Ukraine for a certain amount of days. he released it per that protocol. We have not been shown the WH document as to why he halted the cash...This document id so far the only piece of evidence that would be a factual document.
In regards to the documents the Congress has requested, the WH has claimed they were holding them to be checked for the need of redaction. This certainly appears to be dragging their feet. But have they obstructed Congress? This will be left to interpretation.
I have seen no evidence only He said she said... And that just won't show cause. Not sure why some see all the hearsay as true evidence?
It's just illogical. lot's of smoke no fire. Could you offer one piece of evidence that is not just hearsay, and could be looked at as evidence?
Sondlands own words is considered direct evidence no matter how the Right spins it. Would you be willing for Bolton and others to provide more?
What part of Sondlands statement did you find could be factual evidence that the president abused his power? I read his opening statement to Congress I found nothing that could indicate he could prove he president abused his power or committed a crime.
Perhaps I missed what you are referring to? What word did you find incriminated the President of abuse of power?
I hope to understand your view, and I might have missed something. perhaps Sondland made the statement while being asked questions by Congress? I do know he updated his statement, but his words were very carefully stated, and he gave no direct information other than his opinion, what he felt.
Sondland--who gave a million to Trump's campaign-- had no reason to lie when he stated there was a quid pro quo in the Ukraine deal. Why would he lie?
Are you still trying to use your ignorance and unanswered questions ("Why would he lie?") as evidence of anything but your own ignorance? Still doesn't work. Not even if you first state that you already know the answer but actually don't.
Do you have any idea of what Sondland offered as factual proof od a quid pro quo? I am trying to figure out hat Randy is talking about?
I have covered every word Sondland uttered, and it's all opinion-oriented? Have I missed something?
I think you missed where Randy took it upon himself to decide which opinions were actually fact and which would be ignored. Not a tough job - anything that demonizes the President is true and the rest shall be discarded.
Here is the testimony in regard to a Quid pro quo. If you listen closely it is only hearsay as well as the opinion that leads Sondland to his own conclusions. He is very careful to speak of who he spoke to, and what he said. He claimed everyone is in the Loop, but he said this without any proof of his theory. He most often speaks of Gulliani requests, this is second-hand information. And so far no proof that the president was behind Gulliaini's requests.
I have listened to Sondlands opening statement and his testimony,
Here is a link to CNN, and hopefully you will listen to the part Sondland address quid pro quo.
This is not backed up by anyone else? I would think if Gulliain or Rick Perry backed up the instructions were from the President it would hold water. Otherwise, there is no there there. he said "I became to believe" this is opinion-oriented.
If you can provide q quote from Sondland where he claims he spoke to the president in regards to a quid pro quo please provide it. One fact he verifies is that the resident verbally told him I want nothing from Ukraine, I want no quid pro quo. This is a piece of first-hand evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/p … dland.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics … index.html
Why do you distrust his belief, Shar? He gave a million to Trump and had no reason to lie about it. And sure, Bolton, Perry, and others could back Sondland up, but for some reason Trump doesn't want them to be heard.
Perhaps you've a better excuse for Trump blocking the documents and witnesses than I've heard so far.
After all, if they could clear Trump, then why not hear from them? But you know they will prove Trump broke his oath of office just as McConnell and the Senate Republicans does.
At any rate, if Trump gets away with this, then you and the other enablers are responsible for he does next. I predict it won't be long before he screws up again.
I don' distrust his belief. I am just pointing out its hearsay, and his own view on what was going on. it certainly holds smoke.
I recently came to learn Trump did not use executive privilege to stop Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry or Don McGahn? They chose not to testify. Congress could have held them all in contempt and requested the court make them testify. The document, the WH gave a statement (some time ago). they were .going through the documents to redact areas that might be sensitive. I can see they do not intend to cooperate by turning documents over to Congress.
Randy, Believe it or not, I hope to see a trail, with witnesses from both sides. I do think we need to hear from all I mentioned above to give testimony on not only what Sondland said, but questioned to see if they have any form of information on the phone call and the halting of the aid to Ukraine. I want to hear from the office that holds the document that the WH provided to officially put a hold on the aid. That document would be a solid piece of evidence whereas a reason would have been provided.
This accusation needs to be sorted out, he has been charged, and now it's time to seek the truth not push it into a file and consider it just another case of possible political corruption. We need answers, not more conspiracies to deal with. My God, we have a president that has articles of impeachment hanging over his head. We absolutely need this mess brought to trial.
Impeachment should not be taken so lightly.
Sharlee, as unwelcome as it usually is, I must offer a bit of unsolicited advice. I would, (and do), focus much less on whether there was a "quid pro guo" asked, (because I do think there was), and focus more strongly on the purpose of the quid pro quo.
My opinion is that the 'evidence' whether direct hearsay, (Sondland), or 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay, (Vindman et al.), or my opinion of Pres. Trump's character, it clearly indicates there was an 'ask'. However, it is also my opinion that asking for something in return for foreign aid is not automatically a bad thing. Biden's ask comes to mind, as well as many other historical examples; Japan's Constitution and the Marshall Plan also come to mind as examples of foreign aid tied to quid pro quos.
Hence my advice to focus on the purpose of the "ask" rather than whether or not there was an "ask." And to that focus, I can agree with the overall point of your responses - there is no evidence, beyond hearsay, that proves an abuse of office.
It certainly is clear that the President asked for a favor. It's his motive that needs to be clarified. It appears, on one hand, he was looking for dirt on the Biden's to use in the election. If he felt the Biden's committed some form of crime, would it not be prudent to investigate and uncover the crime before this man possibly became president? Or perhaps he should have played the game "protect the politician" at all costs? Keep in mind the promised to drain the swamp.
One must ask, does it appears there could have been wrongdoing on Biden's part? Perhaps there is as much smoke around the Biden's as Trump has gathered with his notorious phone call. So, I would say he may have had good cause to ask Zelinsky to check out the Biden's. We now have to ask 'what if" in regard to the controversy that surrounds the Biden's.
On the other hand, could Trump truly been concerned over the amounts of aid money we were giving to Ukraine? He certainly has made it clear he intends to put America first, and pinch taxpayers pennies. Trump is also well-known for his comments about how much we put out in foreign aid, while other countries lag behind.
He definitely "asked'. We just don't know why he asked. Was he abusing his power or using his power to solve what he perceived pending problems? I would hope a trial would offer answers.
You completely skipped over the list Vindman gave Trump as to what corruption was to be looked into, Shar and Gus.
Neither the debunked server or Hunter Biden was on the list Vindman supplied. So why do either of you believe Trump suddenly became interested in corruption when he'd previously released aid in the last few years?
Like I said earlier, I believe in coincidences occasionally, but there are way too many in this scenario. The cut off of aid immediately after the call, Biden's beating Trump in the polls, the firing of the ambassadors, the release of the aid after the WB complaint, All coincidences? I'll have to call BS on that claim!
I have not been able to obtain any information on what was on Vindman's list he provides Trump in April. I did find an article that confirmed Vindman suggested talking points for the April call between the president and Zelinsky, and that Viddman claimed the president did not bring any of his suggestions up in the call.
It well appears Trump was interested in any form of corruption that was going on in Ukraine well before the July 24th call.
But it was only coincidence he homed in on the Biden's and the server? Gotcha.....
And your response to Trump's breaking the law by not informing Congress he was holding up the funds and why he was doing so?
There already exists a way for for Trump to have done this legally, but he knew he'd have to come up with a better reason for the hold than what he had.
Of course, there simply may be a reasonable excuse for why he did it the way he did, but I seriously doubt it.
Randy, once again Sondland was asked his opinion in regards to if he felt the situation looked like a quid pro quo. He gave no proof of any conversation with anyone that confirmed a quid pro quo.
I have read his opening statement, his day's later reevaluation of his statement, his testimony to Congress. I can find nothing but statements of opinion.
What statement from Sondland did you find confirmed factual evidence of a quid pro quo? I did find a few statements that when asked if he thought it appeared a quid pro quo had taken place.
So where did you find him stating and proving he had proof of a quid pro quo?
I have noted many here are under the assumption Sondland confirm proof of a quid pro quo, but no one actually can provide an actual statement to back this claim?
I would appreciate a quote from Sondland regarding this evidence. I have been searching, and have not located any such quote.
Deflecting again? That's ok Randy. We all know no one is confused. We've all seen the facts. We also all know who has to pretend thefacts are different from what we can all see and what the witnesses said.
I get it. Nancy had to satisfy a delusional base. We are pretending everyone can't see the convoluted contortions to pretend something was found when every witness confirmed nothing was found. We understand that new charges had to be fabricated because there was no evidence to charge for what they started with.
We all heard Nancy say they'd been trying to impeach for 2.5 years now. We all know what that means, as regards the current drama. We all see she won't send the articles to the Senate. We all know what that means.
I realize you feel the need to keep making excuses and use convoluted reasoning to pretend you think it makes sense. I get your loyalty. Goose stepping is hard work. We feel for you. I would hope, someday, you'll come to the light and think for yourself. It's so much easier than pretending.
Wow, that fiction is practically short-story length. You should submit it to Breitbart or Sean. Or, is that where you got it?
Randy you claim Sondland's opening statement was the smoking gun. You might actually listen to his whole testimony instead of watching cherry picked snippets courtesy of the guys at CNN. You'd understand why your statement is pointless and,ultimately, false; if your claim is Sondland had the smoking gun.
I did watch his testimony, LTL. What were you doing at the time? Certainly not listening with an open mind...
Why would Sondland make up his story?
Again what story? Please be specific, offer a link to prove Sondland claimed he had proof of a quid pro quo ... If he did offer such evidence, I have not been able to find it?
This seems some here believe Sondland offered some form of factual evidence, please supply a link to confirm Sondland gave such proof.
It would appear an easy task? His opening statement, as well as his reevaluation and testimony, is online in full. Please offer up the incriminating statement.
What story? That he had no contact with Trump where your belief was proven to be true? Or was it his testimony that Trump specifically told him 'I want nothing. I just want him to do the right thing'?
Do you remember the past conversations about whether asking for a "quid pro quo" was automatically a bad thing or abuse of office?
What if Sondland's opinion was right, and the president was asking, (before he got 'caught'), for a quid pro quo, do you think to ask or demand a quid pro quo is an abuse of office?
Of course, I admit those are obviously leading questions, but your answers would put your thoughts in context.
In this we completely agree, Shar. The latest email from Duffey indicates the funds were held up almost immediately after the phone call when Trump asked "for a favor."
There are so many "coincidences" at this time, it's almost beyond the odds they they're just that. Why did Trump not hold up the funds for the first few years? Only when he learned Biden was out polling him did he take notice of Hunter's hob in the Ukraine.
Vindman gave Trump a list of suggestions on corruption Trump was to have mentioned, but again a coincidence, he mentioned two not even on the list. The Biden's, and the server, which only helped Russia's claim of not interfering in the election.
I can go on and on with all of the coincidences in just this one instance, but I doubt it would do any good.
I agree with lots of smoke. That's
why we need a trial. We need clarity on all you have mentioned. However, it is unwise to condemn anyone without hearing both sides and seeing some real facts.
And now we find out both Pompeo and Bolton warned Trump about withholding the funds from Ukraine. It is illegal for Trump to withhold approved funding without permission from Congress. Another law broken and the reason for Bolton's resignation.
Now do you understand why Trump is being impeached, Shar?
Again, your problem with the English language.
Do I have to explain the difference between the word "withheld" and "delayed?"
No, there is no reason for President Donald Trump to be impeached. We read the transcript of the call and Ukraine got the funding.
I agree, but now hat the cat is out of the bag so to say. Do we need a trial to sort out not only what half the country think Trump may have done, but what Biden and his son may have done?
Or do you think we once again just move on and hope it sinks to the deeps of the swamp?
Shar, Mike, like many others, are terrified Bolton and others will testify in the Senate trial. I welcome all pertinent witnesses so we can all judge for ourselves if Trump needs to be removed from office or remain POTUS.
The truth will set you free...is a great saying.
" It is illegal for Trump to withhold approved funding without permission from Congress. Another law was broken and the reason for Bolton's resignation." Although, there is a precedence that shows Presidents have "delayed" foreign aid on many occasions for many reasons. I do know the funds where released in a timely fashion.
I read that the WH was within their rights to REQUEST a hold on funds from Congress. Which was NOT done? It is well documented in June of 2019 Trump requests information on what funds other countries were providing to Ukraine. On July 12 Trump order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine.
A separate note sent by a senior aide to the Secretary of Defense to others there said on June 24 that the White House wanted to know in particular if U.S. firms were providing the aid, and how much assistance was being provided to Ukraine by U.S. allies. (The answer was that “dozens of vendors are U.S. companies” and many other countries were supporting Ukraine, according to a copy.).
So it does appear Trump as early as June was looking for information on how much aid we provide Ukraine as well as how much our allies give.
https://publicintegrity.org/national-se … nding-law/
I can't argue that there is lots of smoke. And as I said this needs to be brought to a fair trial. A fair trial with witnesses on both sides, and both sides being able to call whoever they feel will shed light on facts.
I'm sure it's only a coincidence he only asked about the Biden's and the server, added to a lot more coincidences around the same time.
Yes indeed, he is an anti-corruption genius. Think Trump University and the Trump Foundation. Certainly no corruption there.
I am so tired of these clowns making a three ring circus out of everything in an effort to impose their wills.
by Randy Godwin 13 days ago
We're going to find out much about our governing bodies of Congress over the next few days or weeks. We'll also find out if we're to be lead by a President or a dictator in the future. History will not be kind to those who allow the POTUS to be above the law.
by Sharlee 3 weeks ago
Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House...
by Randy Godwin 11 days ago
As the meaning of a trial is a "search for the truth," do you consider the Republican Senators voting to deny new witnesses and documents as Searching for the truth? If so, then why?
by Ralph Schwartz 8 weeks 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 Don W 2 months ago
Wallace asked a Trump aide:". . . before an impeachment trial, all senators have to raise their right hand and take an oath to do impartial justice. How impartial can it be when McConnell says, quote, he is taking his 'cues' from the White House?"https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday/statu...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 weeks 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...
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.|