Senate impeachment circus
- Thread starter minutemenX
- Start date
- Status
Okay, Trump's lawyer Alan Dershowitz needs some mustard lathered onto the pretzel he has just twisted himself into. No longer are the Republicans arguing that all quid pro quo are wrong. AD is now saying that it's ok if Trump withheld military funding to a wartime ally Ukraine, in exchange for an announcement to do an investigation of his election opponent; because Trump probably thinks his re-election is in the best interest of the United States. Therefore the extortion of the Ukrainian president was legal because it was in the best interest of the US to have Trump re-elected.
Ridiculous!
If the Republicans acquit Trump of abuse of power, then it must be legal for Senators and Representatives to do back room deals with Russia and China to dig up dirt on their election opponents and interfere with our elections!
The Democrats impeached Trump for good reason, despite knowing the Republican Senate would likely vote to acquit.
1) The evidence of wrongdoing became so overwhelming that Trump was abusing his presidential power to bully an ally currently at war, and with the sole purpose of getting himself re-elected.
2) To stand by silently and decline to impeach the POTUS would be seen as tacit approval of his abuse of power.
3) Thus it is Congress's sworn duty to protect the Constitution, regardless of whether the electorate overwhelmingly approves or not
4) Trump is cheating in this upcoming Presidential election, so how can this election hold him accountable for his corruption?
Ridiculous!
If the Republicans acquit Trump of abuse of power, then it must be legal for Senators and Representatives to do back room deals with Russia and China to dig up dirt on their election opponents and interfere with our elections!
The Democrats impeached Trump for good reason, despite knowing the Republican Senate would likely vote to acquit.
1) The evidence of wrongdoing became so overwhelming that Trump was abusing his presidential power to bully an ally currently at war, and with the sole purpose of getting himself re-elected.
2) To stand by silently and decline to impeach the POTUS would be seen as tacit approval of his abuse of power.
3) Thus it is Congress's sworn duty to protect the Constitution, regardless of whether the electorate overwhelmingly approves or not
4) Trump is cheating in this upcoming Presidential election, so how can this election hold him accountable for his corruption?
I didn’t think anyone discussed their age here. I thought GMA wanted to fight with Trump? The whole thread is fighting about Trump and I though it now was going to be settled in a fight with him.
I didn’t know you were 69. In the last year 2 people I know died who were 69. One was an active attorney who had cancer and the other a retired insurance adjuster, who had a massive heart attack during his sleep and was found dead in the morning by his wife. I miss both of them and they both died just short of 70 which reminded me of my beloved Grandpa who for months talked about turning 90 only to die 13 days before he reached the big 90.
So I hope you make 70 as it’s a milestone birthday. Trump has you by 4 years! And still going strong all considered.
we will let the courts descide
if your statement was 100% true and accurate of coarse not
My main argument stems from the transcript to the conversation he was accused of doing this
which was hearsay from a whistle blower prior to the transcript being released which no one thought trump would ever do
who will probably never come to light
and i think people read into it with their own political views
i read the transcript no where does he ask for a favour
so we will wait for the descision
if he is cleared of all acusiations like the russia voter rigged scandal bs i hope there is legal re coarse against all the with hunters
how dare trump go and do another good thing for the country
Trump signs new USMCA bill into law, clearing way for Commons debate
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/tru...law-clearing-way-for-commons-debate-1.4787961
its ok if he happened to lot the election the democrats would cut off their noses to spite their faces and destroy all the good trump did
to spite him they would destroy the country out of spite and hatred
watching the live hearings question was asked
what was worse trump refuseing aid to ukrane for 48 days
or obama refusing aid for over 3 yrs (over 1000 days)
Trump signs new USMCA bill into law, clearing way for Commons debate
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/tru...law-clearing-way-for-commons-debate-1.4787961
its ok if he happened to lot the election the democrats would cut off their noses to spite their faces and destroy all the good trump did
to spite him they would destroy the country out of spite and hatred
watching the live hearings question was asked
what was worse trump refuseing aid to ukrane for 48 days
or obama refusing aid for over 3 yrs (over 1000 days)
Well Trump's team is not exactly conceding the quid pro quo, but because the evidence is overwhelming, they are now giving their best contingency defense of Trump's attempted blackmail.
Re the memorandum (although people are calling it a transcript, it is not a word for word transcript they're calling it a memorandum, which I guess means an approximation of what was said; one would think that an exact transcript would be useful), Trump says "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..."
Here is a link to the memorandum: Unclassified09.2019.pdf
I do agree that the memorandum can be interpreted differently through different lens. However, that's where the eyewitness testimony of the 3 amigos is relevant. It details the conversations between Trump/Giuliani's team and Ukrainian government officials coordinating the quid pro quo. This whole case is really complicated to keep track of all the testimony, and I certainly can't keep it all straight.
Here is a link to a Washington Post article re this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nt-need-outline-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-himself/
Contrary to Fox News universe, Trump was neither cleared nor exonerated by the Mueller investigation. People did get that impression because William Barr, recently installed as US Attorney General by Trump, lied when he concocted a two page summary of the Mueller Report, and wrongly claimed that Mueller had cleared Trump of any wrongdoing. Mueller eventually sent Barr a private letter objecting to that characterization, and eventually testified before Congress many many weeks later. He did not find enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion with the Russian government (not guilty does not mean innocent btw). But Mueller did find lots of evidence of obstruction; he specifically stated that if he could have exonerated Trump of obstruction, then he would have done so, but he could not. He also stated that the reason he did not charge Trump with a crime of obstruction is that his reading of legal precedence determined that a sitting POTUS cannot be charged with a crime through our criminal justice system; that duty falls to Congress through powers of Impeachment granted in the Constitution.
So no way was Trump cleared of crimes or wrongdoing by the Mueller Report. Mueller left it to Congress to address
Addendum: Mueller also concluded that Russa had interfered in the election with the intention of benefitting Trump's campaign
In this thread we have already covered Trump's criminal behavior from many different angles. But I think one salient point has not yet been raised, even though it seems rather important to me. So let us for once make an honest attempt to take GMA's principal argument seriously (and not for an incoherent rant it clearly is) and deal with it logically. Please bear with me...
It goes like this: Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponent with the transparent purpose of helping his (Trump's) reelection campaign. (Delaying for a few weeks the military assistance, but let's leave that alone as it is immaterial.) Obviously, that investigation, had it been conducted, could have resulted in one of two possible outcomes. Either Biden would have been found innocent and above suspicion like Caesar's wife -- or guilty as sin. Conceding from the start, like Trump's accusers do, that the very fact of an investigation is beneficial to Trump's reelection chances, we thereby summarily discard the former option and confidently settle on the latter one -- that Biden is indeed a crook (and the father of a crook.) Which clearly goes to prove that not only Trump was justified in demanding to know where exactly the U.S. taxpayers' money was headed, but it would have been in fact criminally negligent of him not to do so.
Speaking of glass houses and throwing stones...
It goes like this: Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponent with the transparent purpose of helping his (Trump's) reelection campaign. (Delaying for a few weeks the military assistance, but let's leave that alone as it is immaterial.) Obviously, that investigation, had it been conducted, could have resulted in one of two possible outcomes. Either Biden would have been found innocent and above suspicion like Caesar's wife -- or guilty as sin. Conceding from the start, like Trump's accusers do, that the very fact of an investigation is beneficial to Trump's reelection chances, we thereby summarily discard the former option and confidently settle on the latter one -- that Biden is indeed a crook (and the father of a crook.) Which clearly goes to prove that not only Trump was justified in demanding to know where exactly the U.S. taxpayers' money was headed, but it would have been in fact criminally negligent of him not to do so.
Speaking of glass houses and throwing stones...
It is a very good point. But the white house team overlooked another good one. Requesting investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma also will show that US don’t tolerate corruption when their citizens involved in Ukraine. How else you can teach the country from the high ground if your own citizens involved in very same shady deals in the same country? Thus, there are at the very least two motivations. Can you argue what was the true one or assign percentage points to each?
CB Brown, don't get me wrong. You're well informed within the context of Fox News/Republican Party propaganda, but they are not exposing you to a fair and balanced information stream.
1)NAFTA was a decades old agreement that did need updating. As soon as he Republicans took control of the House of Representatives under the Obama administration, they refused from the very beginning to pass any meaningful legislation, no matter how helpful to the country, because they did not want to let Obama have any legislative accomplishments, no matter how bipartisan. You can google Mitch McConnell's role on this.
The House Democrats are better than that, and they negotiated with Trump to get a deal that better protected the environment and allow unions to organize. And the Democrats deserve their share of the credit; they could have blocked this legislation like the Republicans did to Obama. So you see, this is the exact opposite behavior of what you accuse the democrats of; that behavior characterized the Republicans in the Obama years.
2) Once again, more lies about Obama. He did not refuse aid for 3 years to Ukraine. Instead, "he rejected a request for lethal aid in 2014, but approved a $53 million aid package that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor and night-vision goggles, as well as humanitarian assistance."
"US officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia. Key allies including Germany were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone...Between 2014-2016, the US committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine....In the last year of the Obama administration, Congress authorized lethal aid, but it didn't include Javelins", under the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015. However, the first deliveries of lethal aid did not arrive until Trump took office.
That is obviously true too. And I don't think there is a need to choose between the two motivations, why couldn't they both be true. Or rather there would not have been a need to do so in any honest attempt to get to the bottom of this.
I don't really pick and chose and some of my information was from abc cnbc.
I have personally dealt with the media over the years
from live interview in my house where the story was changed from actual fact
Other interviews conducted by reporters who took what i said and twisted it and put things in the article which were not not true and i never said .
My personal experiance with media is they don't always report 100% facts and this happened many many times
So you want me to believe its possable fox news is a republican news machine as id like you to realize cnn is a democrat news machine
So its fair to say both sides destort the facts or invent them
Which is why on trump i said i read the transcripts and opinions of people who read it
As for witnesses well when he fires people or treats them like shit you think they will be shy to come and try to tar and feather him
joe biden comes across as arrogant,just before i watched a segment on him where he said he took the train ever day to work,what he didn't mention was if he was going to be late he called and had them hold up the train,imagine 500 people had to wait for this pompas ass
a total abuse of power nothing is beneath him in fact most politicians seem to be like this.
here is the segment on biden enjoy
Peter Schweizer Unveils the Layers of Corruption Behind the Biden Family
In an interview with Breitbart News's Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow Wednesday on Breitbart News Daily, Peter Schweizer, author of Profiles in Corruption, details how his investigative work unfolded layers of corruption by the Biden family, from Hunter Biden's dealings in China, Ukraine to Frank Biden's automobile death cover-up. "People will say sometimes politicians can't control what their family does, and that's true, but you can control their access to the levers of power," Schweizer added. Schweizer is President of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a senior contributor at Breitbart News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7iIzNQ1_6I
The whole Hunter Biden issue is a canard. As I have written before, he was guilty of nepotism and has never been implicated in criminal behavior. Republicans engaging in their usual lies and half truths, their usual operating procedure when the facts are not convenient. If HB were truly guilty, you can be sure Trump would long ago have mobilized the FBI, CIA, the Armed Forces and Star Fleet Command to investigate him.
The Trump children, on the other hand, are dirty as can be.
This is what house team should state, that even if there was motivation to hart Biden it was not the single or the major one. To argue, the house managers need to show that from a number of corruption cases that involve Americans in Ukraine Trump singled out this one. Good luck with that.
it is kind of ironic that it is Trump's fault that his presumed opponent turned out to be a corrupt crook (and the father of an even more corrupt one).
As an aside, isn't it nice to have a serious intelligent discussion once in a while? Which it could have been all along, if not for the invasion of harebrained bullshitters.
gez can you give some warning to a guy i almost choked on my coffee
ya know like start off with pg13+
Beg to differ>Trump won the election and the left went bazerk riots in the streets and the words the very day he won we will have him impeached so trump has been busy with benadect arnolds back stabbers and endless false aqusations
but don't you worry the bidens are both going down when this is over and i hope a few other heads roll
oh ya thats my opinion not fox news
Its like the pot calling teh kettle black
joe biden witholds money to ukraine and brags about it on tv well thats ok its in the ''crooked republican hand book''
and if teh prosacutor was not stopped joes son would have bracelets on and the secretary of states step son
think this is not relative
White House Threatens Bolton!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-white-house-book/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-white-house-book/index.html
Thats not a suprise
and if certain people did get called many would probably use the clause that their testimony would be deemed threat to national security and testamony denied
Yes, this is just been presented as a “threat” by the media. As was explained today by the WH team that after all classified info is corrected/removed the book can be published. This is not a threat but standard procedure for every publication by the person that have Top Secret clearance
Consider this a payback for your immortal "subatomic molecules" line. I guess we are even now... :yo:
- Status
Similar threads
