If Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine isn't worthy of impeachment,
Then what is? I'd like to hear from Trump's enablers on what would be worthy of Impeachment. Since bribing a foreign country with Congressional withheld funds, at the time they're fighting our main adversary, isn't worthy of an impeachment trial, then give me some example which would merit it.
Of course it isn't. Only sex between two consenting adults in the oval office is worthy of impeachment. I don't think Clinton lied about that. I think he was thinking of actual intercourse instead of fellatio, but he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. So why shouldn't we give Trump the same treatment for bribery. I don't understand why the Dems didn't add that crime to the list. Somebody was being chickens**t.
You'll notice there's no one on the right who'll venture an answer to the query "What is worthy of impeachment," Miz.
I did expect some to say, "nothing Trump does can be wrong," though. Perhaps they still will?
Here is a case that would clearly have merited impeachment. The VP of the USA said you are not getting the billion dollars unless you fire your prosecutor, and adding an additional threat. If you don't do it in 6 hours I am gone and so is the Million. This would be an impeachable offense that could be well proved with first-hand evidence. A video of the perpetrator making the dual-threats, and then paying off the favor within 6 hours after the deed was done. This is an open and shut case. Yet no impeachment.
in Trump's case --- Trump clearly asks a favor in which he had a legal right to do so. He in no way verbally threatened Zelinsky or put out an ultimatum to Zelinsky. He then paid the funds that he did put on hold. No investigation, funds were paid.I keep hearing this lie, even though it's been debunked many time before, Shar. Not only Republicans from Congress wanted Joe to fire the corrupt AG from Ukraine, the EU was fully behind him to do do.
Joe was backed by US policy to fire him so someone we could trust would fight corruption in the Ukraine. The corrupt AG refused to investigate Burisma and the other corrupt oligarchs stealing money from the country.
What Joe did was increase the anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine as well as putting Hunter in more risk of now being investigated if he was dirty.
So what has Hunter supposed to have wrong, taking a lucrative job? If so, Jerrod and Ivanka better watch out, because they have no qualifications for their WH positions at allI have to ask you to prove it. I have never found any factual information that Biden was asked to hold the funds to obtain the prosecutor be fired.
Yes, Congress voted on the Billion dollar aid, he had no right to hold it as a quid pro quo. No, right at all. In fact, America has no right to dictate any Government hiring and firing.
You offer me one bit of proof that is in the form of a statement from our Government on Joe's ploy, not articles with unknown persons giving their interpretation of the incident. A statement from our Government approving Joe's action.
I suggest you don't waste your time. There was no comment from the White House when Joe pulled his stunt... None, they apparently were not ready to cover his butt. And I would venture there is no documentation on his stunt.
The Biden's need to be investigated. It well appears the Obama WH covered up a true Quid Pro Quo.Shar, you are completely wrong as usual. Here's two reports of several proving my claim.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 785620002/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/p … raine.htmlNo, actually you're wrong. There are no statements from the Obama administration on Joe's ploy. Your articles are written opinion articles. They have no proper resources. Sorry I have been doing research on Biden's fiasco. It is very clear when it happened it was reported by a few due to the concerns on how it looked, then deeply buried.
You offer me one bit of proof that is in the form of a statement from our Government on Joe's ploy, not articles with unknown persons giving their interpretation of the incident. A statement from our Government approving Joe's action.
I suggest you don't waste your time. There was no comment from the White House when Joe pulled his stunt... None, they apparently were not ready to cover his butt. And I would venture there is no documentation on his stunt.So who gave Biden the authority to use the money to leverage the Ukraine, Shar? You think Biden did it without the blessing of the State department like Trump tried to do? Or do you believe Obama gave the deal his blessing?
Did you not read the articles I provided? Apparently not or you'd have seen all of those backing the removal of the corrupt AG in Ukraine.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … aine-were/But, but . . . Sharlee is asking for proof of validation that VP Biden was acting at the president's direction. Your links haven't shown that.
Personally, I think Biden was acting via administration policy, but that is just because I can't imagine that he wasn't. I haven't found anything that proves what I think is right.
And that is what Sharlee is asking you for, (I think), proof that that is so.
Otherwise, your proof, so far, is nothing more than stated assumptions. Sure a bunch of folks wanted the action, but who approved the action?
GASo you too believe Biden was acting without approval of US policy makers, Gus?
Can you give proof he wasn't? Or that he was acting on his own volition?I seriously doubt it. Shar is invested in Trump, and no amount of proof he's corrupt will change her mind, as we've witnessed.
If 17 honorable witnesses doesn't prove I'm correct, then what will, Gus? Do you believe these people were never Trumpers, or simply doing what they thought was right?"So you too believe Biden was acting without approval of US policy makers, Gus?"
Read buddy, read:
"Personally, I think Biden was acting via administration policy, but that is just because I can't imagine that he wasn't."
And Sharlee's question wasn't about Trump's corruption, it was about proving that Biden was following administration direction.
GARandy, Can you give proof he wasn't? Or that he was acting on his own volition?I seriously doubt it. Shar is invested in Trump, and no amount of proof he's corrupt will change her mind, as we've witnessed."
As I asked in my original comment. Can you prove Biden had the blessings of the White House or Congress? His actions were reported, and then zip buried. I must correct you on your opinion of me. I have a very open mind in regard to what our president does as well as what the government does. I look for facts, not media blurbs or opinion stories. This is where we differ.
Sometimes, like in this Biden incident, it is very hard to find facts. Yes, there are "stories". However, nothing from our Government. Seems Biden did may have committed a quid pro quo., and it may have been covver-up. My God Randy if Trump sat in the chair Biden sat in on a TV interview and said what he said. Can you imagine the consequence.? There would have been an immediate investigation to see if our State Department backed his ploy to hold that Billion dollar. Come on...
"If 17 honorable witnesses doesn't prove I'm correct, then what will, Gus? Do you believe these people were never Trumpers, or simply doing what they thought was right?"
Randy, what can opinion really prove? I am not sure how many times I have said this. The witnesse were well versed in their jobs, they were under oath, and I believed them all to be honest in offering their opinions. However, hey could only share their thoughts, not facts about the president's thoughts, motives in regards to the call or holding the fund. They all gave opinions on how they felt the funds being held could have effected Ukraine in regard to policy. None claimed that holding the funds caused the loss of life or problems with conducting the war with Russia. This was a narrative that the House, as well as the media, promoted. I watched every minute of the investigation inquiry as well as the trail. It is all there to view on Cspan. If you would take the time to watch you would clearly hear what was said, not what the media said they said.
.
You claim Trump is corrupt, there is just no proof that he is corrupt. The Dems have tried everything they can think of to prove your theory. Lawsuit after lawsuit, all tossed out. Just like the Emollient case was tossed out last week. Did you ever even think you may be believing reports that are just not true? Not trying to insult you or get you mad. Just hope you can see we have different ways of searching for the truth. Yes, I am invested at this point in looking for facts on the Bidens. I would think you would be too.
In regards to being invested in the President, I guess you are correct. I certainly can't deny his job performance, I certainly would not at this point consider voting for anyone else. You see I vote on agenda, and in a second term, I vote on job performance. I have followed all the Dems have drummed up, and I have not seen anything that tells me the president is corrupt. I got the guts to say that, and stand behind my convictions.You never will see anything Trump does as corrupt, Shar. Even if he grabbed you by the......
Let's stay on the subject. Actually we were discussing Biden, not Trump.
"As I asked in my original comment. Can you prove Biden had the blessings of the White House or Congress? His actions were reported, and then zip buried. I must correct you on your opinion of me. I have a very open mind in regard to what our president does as well as what the government does. I look for facts, not media blurbs or opinion stories. This is where we differ."Damn Randy. You been drinking? I am not going to try to catch-up tonight. (we saw where that got me on the SOTU speech. ;-)
GAWell, if she is unconcerned about him doing it to other women, she would also be unconcerned if he did it to her. No?
Do you think that relates to the point of my comment? I am not willing to go any further on this. I still get to decide my own level of civility. My response was only intended as a nudge of conscience.
GAWhat exactly was your point, Gus? Shar accepts this type of language from Trump--a man she apparently admires--but when directed at her, she becomes indignant.
"this type of language"
It appears you understand my point Randy.
GANope, I don't, Gus. I didn't use the word Trump used, simply left it blank as we all know what word Trump used. Such indignance is laughable.
GA, It certainly appears Randy feels he knows my every thought. I thank you for pointing it out. However, I let it go seeing it was Randy being Randy. When he can't prove a point he always resorts to an insult. Most vague, I guess I must have really hit a nerve. Not sure if you followed the conversation, I saw this coming. However, I did appreciate you noticing his conduct, and that it was not really appropriate or called for.
But Trump insults you abide by? LOL! What a hypocritical, stance you take, Shar.
He insults anyone who disagrees with him and you condone it, and apparently enjoy his words. Live with your choice of a person who respects no one, not even his wife, as we've observed his porn star and playmate paramours.
Of course, you deny this as well.Not sure how many times I need to point this out. I don't care bout Trump's demeanor, personality or his off language. I have admitted this frequently. How do I put this? If Trump came up to ME and said something I found insulting. I would open my big mouth, and tell him off. I am not a woman that is afraid of speaking up... Not a "me too" woman. I am what you might call a "What the hell did you say" kind of woman.
I don't choose a president on his looks, race, religion or his personality. I like a good agenda, a person I feel will get things done. Because ya know what, most politician ar phony. Trump not so much...
Not sure how you can call me a hypocrite, I never made any statements that I cared one way or the other about Trump's personality, hair, demeanor, a language I don't abide by anything but his agenda. I did not really get upset at your comment. As with Trump, I considered the source.
In the end, did your comment hit home? No, it did not.Okay, you'd be insulted if Trump did it to you, but don't care how he treats anyone else. Gotcha!
But what else do you expect from the most vulgar, low class, dishonest, person we've ever witnessed in the WH?
I was not pointing out Trump's poor language or have I ever condoned it., I was pointing out yours, and the fact that you felt you had the right to use it in a conversation. For no reason but the fact you could...As I said very telling.
I am going, to be honest, you have no idea if I admire the president's demeanor, his personality or anything else. Here is one thing you can be sure of. I admire his job performance and all of his accomplishments. I have never witnessed a president that has accomplished what he has.
One more thing straight up --- I find anyone at this point after three years that can't recognize those accomplishments having a problem with reality. Just my opinion. And you can quote me.Sure you've condoned it, Shar! After hearing him say it, you voted for him anyway. This what I was pointing out with comment. Or did you simply get indignant because I was using his own words to an enabler?
I voted for his agenda and will be doing so again. I can assure you I knew of Trump's personality long before he ran for president. He certainly never change it to be a politician.
If you will note the progression of the thread it was not I that pointed out your statement. It was GA. It is apparent he felt your language uncalled for.
Now my truth, I found your language par for the course. I found it typical of you. Something I had witnessed before when conversing with you. Something I wrote off as "just consider the source". You have no idea what I condone. You should have the least noted I was open to conversing and listening to your views without insulting you.
Of course Gus, but not at the time I made this comment. And of course, Shar didn't say say he would be corrupt if he did. Simply evaded the comment. I don't know what that means to you, but it tells me something.
"Even if he grabbed you by the......"
I agree, that tells me something too. You weren't talking to a locker-room buddy.
GACorrect Gus, I was talking to a Trump enabler, instead of a person who is disgusted by such actions from the POTUS. Or do you disagree?
Yep, I disagree. Maybe not with what you think though.
GA
GA, When Randy feels cornered he comes out with a glib insult. I have come to expected expect this insecure behavior as part of his personality. If one is bored and wants to see how this discussion progressed into his this crude comment, one only has to read the thread. he just can't respect an opinion that is opposite his own. Even if that opinion can be just as plausible as his own.
It odd he finds Trump's behavior so offensive, yet he had no problem resorting to using the same behavior. Telling is it not?This the Trump era, Shar. You helped elect this POS, but feel insulted when someone else mimics his language. One the day after his election I overheard some girls talking in a store. One said, Since Trump is president now, we can start saying n****r again.
And sure enough, the rednecks down here took it to heart. My "insult"--as you deemed it-- to you, is closer to the truth than you will admit.It seems obvious what my '2-cents' is worth Sharlee. You are more than capable of holding your own, so I will try to refrain from butting in. Maybe. ;-)
GA
Who gave him the authority? I can only offer my view at this point. I would assume the state department knew as well the White House, and positively the Congress would have had the full right to know if the cash was being held. Keep in mind it was the Congress that allocated the cash, just like they allocated the last aid allocated under Trump. The funds he held. Did Obama now, I would certainly think he knew.
I read both of the pieces. They were unproven opinions. No names or proof of the story. Just undocumented stories. There are many online in the same story. I asked you for a statement from the Government on the Biden on the Billion dollar threat Biden made. I have not ever found anything from the Government I take that back, during the House trail there where two witnesses that testified n the impeachment investigation that was asked about what Biden did. Both said that when it went down, they reported it to the state Department for conflict of interest, and claimed it "looked bad".They both claimed they never heard another thing about it. It appears the WH and the State department buried the problem.
This needs looking into by the DOJ. It certainly looks as if Joe did this on his own to protect his son or the Obama administration knew about it. Which is not likely because there would be no problem saying they did. It appears they buried it for Biden after he got himself in hot water.
In my opinion, this quid pro quo would be very easy to prove with factual evidence. He went on TV and admitted it... I see one difference, the WH was willing to bury the mess and hope it never came back to bit them.
May just be the reason Obama is unwilling to support Biden.Joe had the backing of the State Department and the EU, and Republicans in Congress. He followed US policy. His son wasn't under investigation so was no quid pro quo.
Trump tried to go around US policy and had Rudy do his dirty work as if Rudy were a govt. employee, all for having an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.
If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry. It seems nothing can convince you Trump did wrong, nothing or anything, for that matter.Who gave him the authority? I can only offer my view at this point. I would assume the state department knew as well the White House, and positively the Congress would have had the full right to know if the cash was being held. Keep in mind it was the Congress that allocated the cash, just like they allocated the last aid allocated under Trump. The funds he held. Did Obama now, I would certainly think he knew.
I read both of the pieces. They were unproven opinions. No names or proof of the story. Just undocumented stories. There are many online in the same story. I asked you for a statement from the Government on the Biden on the Billion dollar threat Biden made. I have not ever found anything from the Government I take that back, during the House trail there where two witnesses that testified n the impeachment investigation that was asked about what Biden did. Both said that when it went down, they reported it to the state Department for conflict of interest, and claimed it "looked bad".They both claimed they never heard another thing about it. It appears the WH and the State department buried the problem.Yes, Biden on his own volition took it upon himself to single handedly extort the Ukraine without anyone's approval, just like Trump did. Does this sound about right to you?
As I said ---Who gave him the authority? I can only offer my view at this point. I would assume the state department knew as well the White House, and positively the Congress would have had the full right to know if the cash was being held. Keep in mind it was the Congress that allocated the cash, just like they allocated the last aid allocated under Trump. The funds he held. Did Obama now, I would certainly think he knew.
Never said Biden did it of his own volition. Trump released the phone call the minute he heard of the whistleblower complaint. and did not bury anything. He certainly could all he needed to do was use his EP. He could have totally stopped anyone from ever hearing that phone call with his EP. The House would have had to present their case to the Supreme Court. How do you think that would have played out?We still haven't seen the transcript, just a summary of the call. That's okay if this POTUS is known for his honesty, but he's not. Which was why he tried to get the witnesses not to testify. Or why the WH refused to release documents and other communications the House asked for.
Sound like an honest person? Anyone knows it doesn't. If any of this exonerated him he'd bust a gut getting it out there. Unfortunately, his enablers believe everything he says.
Apparently no one can envision a crime serious enough to oust a POTUS from office. I'm disappointed in the regular forum posters who normally weigh in on such queries.
What's up? Chicken $#!t?I think that giving a country like Iran billions of dollars in cash in the middle of the night or droning to death American Citizens without due process would be worthy of, at the very least impeachment.
Giving a country its own money back is worthy of impeachment? Explain why, Phoe? Would you want your money back if it was taken from you? You're damn right you would.
And which American citizen was "droned" to death?I am quite sure that Charles Manson would make a similar argument. They were his steak knives after all. Lets give Mr. Manson his pocket knives back. Great idea. Excellent rationale.
You are not aware of Obamas extrajudicial killings? Thats more embarrassing than linking you to Jim Jones recordings of him acknowledging he is an atheist.You totally skipped the point of your money being taken, Phoe. I'm sure it was on purpose. The Manson straw man argument is not worthy of replying to.
Give me a link to Obama's murders and I'll give it a read if it's from a reliable source.
Why weren't you with Jim Jones in Guyana if you take his word so seriously?
A lie repeated often enough will be believed by susceptible minds..
I've seen this stupid lie debunked so many times, then parroted back again anyway, that I refuse to converse with any who continue to be so willfully wrong.
As to the subject of your thread, apparently lying under oath about a blow job is grounds for impeachment by GOP standards.
Randy I know this will fall on deaf ears but I'll say it anyway. If I agreed with your premise I'd agree that Trump should have been impeached. However, looking back further than 5 minutes before the phone call creates context which causes me to understand that the accusations by the left are conveniently ignoring facts.
I would boil it down to 2 opinions of government. Yours being that the government does no wrong, ever, and Trump could have had no reason to raise an eyebrow or search for clarification on past behavior by any with government. Mine being our federal government is fraught with lies, deception and graft. No one ever pays and ,instead, profits from their nefarious behavior.
Your stand implies no choice but impeachment. My stand implies incredulity at the blind hypocrisy of your stand.So you admit the president did wrong? Or that it's not worthy of removal? Or he did nothing wrong at all?
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0I look.forward to 2023 when President Sanders hires Michael Avenatti (he should be out of prison by then) as his personal attorney and sends him and his two hired goons to Venezuela to extort political favors from the government--er, I meann, to fight corruption in Venezuela--and all you Trumpeters praise him for being such an awesome corruption fighter.
Yay! I find it interesting how the left ignores facts. The claimed attempt at extortion did not result in any gain for Trump or any loss to the Ukraine when no gain was found.
The left ignores the obvious conflict of interest by our government during the Obama years with the children of top Obama admin players, the shady behavior of Biden and seems to consider none of that relevant. I understand.
The left ignores anything that might add clarity, since none of this is about an individual action as much as it is about Donald Trump.
The left also ignores that the behavior of the House is going to cripple the government in the long run and do permanent damage to the structure of our government.
The goals of the left are all incredibly short sighted and small minded.Are you saying you wouldn't praise President Sanders if he did the exact same thing in Venezuela?
Surely, you jest!"The left also ignores that the behavior of the House is going to cripple the government in the long run and do permanent damage to the structure of our government."
Swap the word "House" with "Donnie", and you would be correct.And I certainly understand your position, given the facts I outlined.
Trump tried to do it under the radar through Rudy. Joe was following US policy and Trump wasn't. Big difference, Joey. But then, you seldom care for the truth.
No Randy, you still have not proved that... Remember all you could find was media opinion stories. I am still waiting for a statement from our Government in regard to them knowing anything about Joe's billion-dollar ploy. Hey, two the House's own witnesses reported Joe's grift to the State Department when it went down. That's the last anyone heard of Biden's scam. In my opinion, looks like Obama buried the mess. Maybe that's why he is unwilling to back Biden in the next election...
So where is your proof Biden followed protocol? CNN, Msnbc? Where are statements from our Government?Are you denying Congress, along with members of the EU, were backing Joe's move? So post something shpwing Obama didn't approve the deal. I've already asked you if you believe Joe went there on his own volition, and what did you say?
Trump's deal was illegal according to the GAO. He didn't notify Congress of him holding the funds up. Illegal whether you like it or not.“The position regarding getting rid of Shokin was not Vice President Biden’s position; it was the position of the U.S. government, as well as the European Union and international financial institutions,” said Amos J. Hochstein, former coordinator for international energy affairs at the State Department and one of the few administration officials who directly confronted Mr. Biden at the time about his son.
---
In an interview, Poroshenko recalled “heated” but cordial discussions with Biden.
He said the loan guarantees were contingent on meeting International Monetary Fund benchmarks, including replacing the prosecutor general. Biden was not alone in his demands, Poroshenko said.
“Pressure on us came from everywhere: the activists, political forces, embassies, international organizations,” he said, adding that the names of Hunter Biden and Burisma never came up.She won't believe your post either, IB. She's embedded in Trump's excuse for his wrongdoing in Ukraine, but chooses to compare it to Biden's US policy oriented move.
She wouldn't change her mind if she saw a video of Trump holding a gun to Zellensky's head, and neither would any of his enablers.Randy, you are well aware I asked you to prove our Government ordered Biden to hold the loan guarantees. You claimed Biden followed protocol, and he was ordered to hold the loan guarantees by our government.
Still waiting for your proof Bidenwas following order form our government.I've already proved it, as have others. I'm through trying to show you something you don't want to see. Find another sucker.
Where? please point out your resource link. All you have done was post a few lines you heard on CNN. You have not in any respect proved anything in regards to Biden having been ordered to hold those loan guarantees. Because there was no statement on the scam. It was covered up and has now come out. Due to the trial. And it was the House's own witnesse that brought it to the forefront.
Again please supply me a source that can verify our government ordered Joe to pull a quid pro quo. And that is just what it was. I just hope to prove it came from our government. Do ya think there is a chance Obama will step up and say he ordered Biden to stop cash for a favor?
Which hopefully you are right, he did get an order to pull off a quid pro quo... LOL Anyway, one looks at it that's what went down.What favor did Joe demand, Shar? Can YOU provide a link to your claim? You made it. Give me the same proof you demand from me if you can.
"Again please supply me a source that can verify our government ordered Joe to pull a quid pro quo. And that is just what it was. I just hope to prove it came from our government. Do ya think there is a chance Obama will step up and say he ordered Biden to stop cash for a favor?"
Actually I found a great video of Joe's deal. And this one actually provided the proof I have been asking for from you. Yes, he asks the president of Ukraine to call Obama. I guess persistence worked once again. Yes, Obama apparently was well aware of the quid pro quo... So, when you claimed Biden had the blessing of the WH and followed instructions... You were right. I had never been able to prove Obama knew about Joe's exam, but it is clear he did. Hey, Obama actually got the deed done and paid for it. This little deed is a classic example of a quid pro quo. Can't blame Joe, he was taking orders from Obamas. LOL
Now let's compare Trump's what the Dem's are calling a quid pro quo. The deed was not done, cash was paid without any retribution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E
As I have asked of Randy please supply a link to anything our Government put out on the Biden deal. Your comment is just rehashing media reports. I would like a factual statement whare as our government backs your explanation.
Still waiting for that a source that proves the Obama WH knew of Biden's sting. Not another media story opinion piece. I guess your response was based on ISLANDBITE comment. She offered information that is interesting but does not indicate that Biden was following an order from the State Department or the WH as you had stated. Although her information did spark my memory in regards to Amos J. Hochstein along with George Kent were concerned about the deal and that Bidens son worked for Burisma.
Your told me so is at best premature.
I would appreciate a link to your information. I was hoping to locate any information that Biden was ordered by the State Department or the White Hosue to hold the funds until Shokin was fired. I am aware of the statements Poroshenko has offered. I am trying to find out who in our Government order the loan guarantees to be held.
I have seen reports that Amos Hochstein, as well as Geoge Kent, notified the WH and State department of their concerns over Hunter Biden working for Burisma.
Let me repeat, Congress approved the funds. The EU had nothing to do with the approval of what aid we give or don't give to any foreign country. The EU had been concerned for many years about Burisma, and it's the owner.
I have looked high and low. The Obama WH or State Department never brought this deal into the light of day. They clearly buried it. As I said two witnesses that testified in the house impeachment inquiry did claim they reported the scam... George Kent for one. The EU has nothing to do with our countries decision making.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ … 2015-89796But you have found where Trump's deal was approved by Congress, Right?
Nope! Rudy approved it, I suppose!
And there's is plenty reported about Bidens deal, you simply believe it's all opinion though. Stick your head back in the sand, Shar. Perhaps you'll see some sand you can believe.Still waiting for some proof that the Obama Ad approved the Biden scam. And I think you know I certainly am aware that the Congress allocated the funds Trump held.
We are not talking about trump and the funds he held. We are talking about the Congressional funds Biden held up for 6 hours. And yes there are lots of "stories on the Biden deal. I am looking for truth, not tales dished up as fed. You should just not discuss something you know nothing about. Or prove it. Just one statement from the Obama State Department or his WH.
THEY BURIED IT.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
We still don't know what presidential misbehavior would be worthy of impeachment in the minds of Trump lovers, do we?
Nope, The enablers can't think of anything Trump wouldn't do criminal wise, so they're afraid to give an example.
Really? You've been told several times it takes a crime, and so far all you've got are not. A long series of accusations, but nothing that will stand the light of day.
Find a crime you can convict, and you might get an impeachment. Until then, good luck - it takes more than assumptions without evidence.There was plenty enough evidence Dan, just you didn't want to see it. Extortion is a crime, paying off mistresses to keep them from talking is a campaign contribution fraud.
Trump is an unindicted co conspirator along with Michael Cohen. And now Barr has gotten involved in the Roger Stone court case trying to lower the sentence recommended by the prosecution. Mike Flynn will probably get no time if Trump has anything to do with it.
Never has there been a POTUS with so many criminal friends around him. Birds of a feather, I suppose.Yes, extrusion is a crime. So, what do we do know that it is clear Obama sent Joe to commit a quid pro quo?
Extrusion is a metal working process, Shar. And not a crime at all.
You seem not to understand quid pro quos are used often in making deals with other countries and nothing is wrong with them unless there's personal gain, such as wanting them to investigate a political rival. You should know this already, but seem to want to act as though you don't.Well, if that's the case, I am so pleased Trump sort of started a quid pro quo did not follow through with it, and yet he was impeached. LOL After finding more out about the Obama/Biden quid pro quo I am so pleased that Trump had the good sense to investigate Joe. I mean I for one would not want a president that uses quid pro quo's to bully our foreign allies. Yeah, it was a great move on Trump's part.
So, what id it Randy, a few weeks ago you made claims Trump was more or less bullying a foreign Allie. Obama wanted to stick his face into another's president's cabinet and ask for a member to be canned. It looks like something that truly needed Trump to have investigated. It also sounds like bullying. You're being a hypocrite in regards to judging Trump, but not Obama.What did Joe get for his quid pro quo, Shar? I've asked you more than once. And you still don't understand our allies were behind the removal of a CORRUPT AG!!!!!!!!
Are you kidding? He actually got an official of one of our allies canned. Yes, you have brought up that allies were behind the quid pro quo. And I have asked you to prove it. And you still haven't. That is nothing but a media story, there is no one with a name that backs it up. no one... It well appears you believe anything you hear from talk jocks. There is no proof of anyone other than Biden involved in the scam. Oh and Obama.
Not at all, one of Ukraine's officials said there was no investigation into Hunter Biden and never was. What can't you understand about the corrupt AG NOT investigating oligarchs, and he was removed by not only our government's blessing, but at the behest of many other countries as well.
You're denying the truth, Shar. Because you refuse to see this cretin as he is.I don't listen to talk jocks. I watch and listen to a multitude of sources, even Trump TV, aka Fox News.
Face the facts, Joe did it the proper way and Trump tried to do it the illegal way, and got caught. He'll even do worse, just watch him. You're in it with him, Shar.
Our allies? I am still waiting for the proof that our allies were in some way involved in telling the USA to work on getting the Ukrainian prosecutor canned. Found anything yet but a story from CNN or MSNBC? And when did other Countries dictate what our country does? Why keep repeating a view you can't prove?
Your own research told you what happened in the Biden deal. You published a comment where you admit it was US policy supported by countries--our allies-- to remove the corrupt Ukraine AG because he wasn't trying to clean up corruption and instead was involved in the oligarchs ripping the country off.
But perhaps you can prove this isn't so, Shar?
https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61 … 5a370481bc
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … -complaintI had a look at your links. They provide nothing that relates to any of our allies asking us to help fight corruption in Ukraine. None certainly requesting America to work on ousting the prosecutor.
I was aware of the United Kingdom was investigating Zlochevsky due to money laundering. They had $23 million in a British bank account that officials believed was laundered.
You just lack any proof anyone asked our government to work on ridding the Ukrain of the crooked prosecutor.
Yes, he was fired, and then Hunter walks into a great paying job he had no expertise in. He also picked up a great paying job in China. Take off your blinders.
So what do we do about Obama's crime? He sent Biden to commit a quid pro quo. And Joe was stupid enough to video his scam. When the president of Ukraine said "you can't' hold the loan guarantees, Joe told him to "call Him".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7EAre you really that dense, Shar? I mean seriously. You can't seem to understand all quid pro quos are not illegal.
Then indict him, and far more importantly, convict him. That's what I said - all you can come up with is unproven accusations. Over and over and over, unproven accusations.
Do you even understand the difference between an accusation and a conviction? (Hint: a conviction requires more than your opinion, or that of a million other people hating the President and his successes). "Innocent until proven guilty" means something, however much you'd like to ignore it.It's not my fault you enablers can't see your nose in front your face. If there was a live video feed showing Trump with a gun to Zellinsky's head, You'd claim he was simply brushing a fly off the Ukraine president's head with the pistol.
Perhaps. But you won't find me making claims of criminal activity while unable to back it up with a conviction or at least hard evidence from accepted law enforcement (not a whistleblower's opinion). I'll leave that type of accusation to you - it seems to please you to make claims that you cannot prove and then insult others when you word is not taken as gospel.
Susan Collins has learned a valuable lesson Dan, but your ilk will hold out to the very end enabling the criminal. It's very obvious to people what the Republicans in the Senate did.
You can pretend they had a "search for the truth," but it doesn't make it true. But no big deal, the truth about your charlatan will come out.
If you consider me calling you an enabler an insult, then report it as such. I'll gladly do the time.You're right; my "ilk" will continue to look at facts rather than imagination and bias. It's what we do, for we take the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" very seriously.
I get that you do not; that you consider your opinion the be-all of conclusions and justice, but it is not a path I choose to take. I have taken that stance ("innocent until proven guilty") for years in these forums and on a wide variety of issues and certainly will not change to "guilt by popular opinion" to suit you. Not even to "guilt by Randy's opinion" no matter how strong your bias is.OJ and Trump were both innocent of their crimes?
The juries in both cases didn't do their duty, Dan. We have no control over that, except we can vote the Senators out.Oh yes they did. I mentioned before that you don't seem to comprehend the difference between guilt and opinion, and certainly the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" goes right over your head, but in both cases those bedrocks of our justice system were carried out.
Just as in OJ's case, where the bar was lowered in a civil case and guilt was found, you can find guilt in Trump...if you lower the bar for the determination low enough. About ankle level, apparently, but it can be done if the goal is to declare guilt rather than truth.
I think, more to the heart of the truth, Trump haters can't think of anything he does as anything but a crime. No matter how small or innocent the act.
One has to understand, the Dems have failed so much it has to be hard for anyone that calls themself a Democrat, not to be defensive and just plain mad.
I'm angry at the Senate Republicans for the cover up in the faux trial, but I'm more disappointed in those who can't tell when he's lying or bulling people. They can tell, of course, but aren't patriotic enough to say so.
Simple a quid pro quo where a deed was asked for, done, and paid for when the deed was completed. Just like the quid pro quo, Biden committed, due to Obman ordering him to.
Actually I found a great video of Joe's deal. And this one actually provided the proof I have been asking for from you. Yes, he asks the president of Ukraine to call Obama. I guess persistence worked once again. Yes, Obama apparently was well aware of the quid pro quo... So, when you claimed Biden had the blessing of the WH and followed instructions... You were right. I had never been able to prove Obama knew about Joe's exam, but it is clear he did. Hey, Obama actually got the deed done and paid for it. This little deed is a classic example of a quid pro quo. Can't blame Joe, he was taking orders from Obamas. LOL
Now let's compare Trump's what the Dem's are calling a quid pro quo. The deed was not done, cash was paid without any retribution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7EYes, I was correct all along, Shar. But what did Joe get for his side of the quid pro quo? His son wasn't under investigation at the time and has never been.
Unlike Trump's extortion scheme, Joe was backed by many different factions and with the blessing of Congress as well. Trump ignored all procedure and broke the law with his scheme. Didn't notify Congress of the hold-up as required and sent his crooked attorney to do a Govt representative's job. If you can't see the difference, then you simply don't want to.
What Trump did was at the very least attempted extortion and the WB blew his scheme up like Bolton claimed when he said Rudy was a "hand grenade."Yes, you got it... LOL this, as I said, leads right to Obama. Do you think our Congress would be part of a quid pro quo? That is ridiculous. There is no way the Obama/ Biden scam was a quid pro quo. And there is no justifying it. And if the Congress went along with it they are in trouble too. There is no evidence anyone in the State Department or the Congress knew anything about this crime. It was a classic quid pro Quo. And just because your though process sees it differently won't change that fact. this needs to be investigated and the truth exposed.
You're being hypocritical to excuse this kind of behavior by the Obama ad.You're simply ignorant of the use of quid pro quos in the government, Shar. They're used all the time to persuade a country to not use nuclear weapons and all sorts of other things. We put sanctions on countries who act bad on the world stage and then make deals with them to take the sanctions off.
They aren't illegal as long they're not used for personal gain. Damn I'm weary of explaining this to you, Shar.
High crimes and misdemeanors. Bill Clinton perjured himself under oath. He legitimately broke the law. Democrats at the time insisted that the president should be censured for breaking the law, and everyone should moveon.org.
Trump did indeed request foreign assistance for an investigation into the Bidens. So what? The Bidens are corrupt and deserve to be investigated by the DOJ in regards to Burisma and the removal of Shokin. And besides, Trump's supposed crime was briefly withholding weapons money for a proxy war with Russia which Obama correctly refused for years to fund. Obama was right. Trump was wrong. That doesn't mean he should be removed from office over it, especially when Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi can't stop making xenophobic and McCarthyite statements about how "all roads lead to Russia" and we have to "fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight them here."
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...
- 69
Dem reverses course on impeachment as support among independents falls
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
House Dem reverses course on Trump impeachment as support among independents fallsHouse Dem now sees no 'value' in Trump impeachment, as polls show fading support among independents"Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported...
- 289
Trump Admits Asking Ukraine to Investigate Biden’s Son-Now this stinks
by Credence2 4 years ago
Background articlehttps://news.yahoo.com/trump-admits-ask … 51988.htmlYour thoughts?
- 142
Are Trump Supporters Blind? Sheep? Misinformed? Misleading?
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Three things have happened in recent days that should have any logical person convinced that President Trump is a liar and guilty of the thing he's being impeached for:1. His lawyers have asserted that the reason for withholding aid to Ukraine had to due with the fact they were responsible for...
- 41
Did Trump and his Team Set a Trap for the Democrats and Deep State?
by The Minstrel 4 years ago
I don't know about you, but the wagon wheels on this impeachment iniative are starting to come off. The recent challenge by Trump for Pelosi to bring the impeachment inquiry to a house vote is a win-win move. If it comes to a vote and they decide not to impeach, then we go back to waiting for the...
- 257
Trump's Criminal Trials
by J Conn 34 hours ago
The country will get at least one verdict before the November election. The New York Hush Money/Election Interference case is set to kick off on March 25. Trump attorneys attempts to get charges dropped and the case delayed were struck...