If Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine isn't worthy of impeachment,

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (104 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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 all

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          I 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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.html

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              No, 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.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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/

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    So 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?

                2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks ago

    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?  tongue

  3. PhoenixV profile image60
    PhoenixVposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. PhoenixV profile image60
        PhoenixVposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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? lol

      2. PrettyPanther profile image81
        PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

  4. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      So you admit the president did wrong? Or that it's not worthy of removal? Or he did nothing wrong at all?

  5. PrettyPanther profile image81
    PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago

    I 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!

  6. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 2 weeks ago

    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.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Are you saying you wouldn't praise President Sanders if he did the exact same thing in Venezuela?

      Surely, you jest!

    2. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        And I certainly understand your position, given the facts I outlined.

  7. Onusonus profile image76
    Onusonusposted 2 weeks ago

    https://external-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCX4FtVuRT0Z3yf&w=265&h=430&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F623b6884aac7d0cee93aae99a6245cf6%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3D15734031&cfs=1&_nc_hash=AQBOX_I_UxA9zQ-F

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. IslandBites profile image87
            IslandBitesposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            “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.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Toldjaso! tongue

                1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

            3. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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/ … 2015-89796

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              But you have found where Trump's deal was approved by Congress, Right? lol

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

  8. PrettyPanther profile image81
    PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago

    We still don't know what presidential misbehavior would be worthy of impeachment in the minds of Trump lovers, do we?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Nope, The enablers can't think of anything Trump wouldn't do criminal wise, so they're afraid to give an example. lol

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, extrusion is a crime. So, what do we do know that it is clear Obama sent Joe to commit a quid pro quo?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              Extrusion is a metal working process, Shar. And not a crime at all. lol

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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!!!!!!!!

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image81
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Lol, are you losing patience?

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  3. Sharlee01 profile image83
                    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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?

          2. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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_Who7E

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              Are you really that dense, Shar? I mean seriously. You can't seem to understand all quid pro quos are not illegal.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Don't worry Obama and Biden are protected under Alan Dershowitz's  Constitution. Just like Trump... LOL

          3. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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. smile

                  If you consider me calling you an enabler an insult, then report it as such. I'll gladly do the time.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

      2. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image83
              Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              I understand how mad you are at the Republican Senate. How's that working out for ya? Like I said maybe it's time to be discussed with your own party.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      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_Who7E

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, 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."

        1. Sharlee01 profile image83
          Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

  9. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 weeks ago

    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."

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)