• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe

sjmay said:
Just want to be clear on the bold, you think President's going through back channels, is an impeachable offense?
Click to expand...

sure, Constitution actually says bribery, treason, high-crimes, misdemeanors and back channels!
 
James972 said:
1) that's a very trivial issue not listed in Constitution as impeachable
Click to expand...
You are correct. The nation's Chief Executive has every right to fire anyone within his Administration he wants for practically any reason. However, I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the President's hiring and/or firing practices. I'm articulating why he (wanted her) fired.
2) normal deep state channels hate Trump so he had no choice.
Click to expand...
:bs: That's the lie you tell yourself so you don't have to :surrender to the truth. This isn't WWII era or the Cold War era where back-channel communications were necessary for national security reasons. There was not national security aspect involved in what Pres. Trump was doing. This was all personal. He wanted to establish back-channel communications with high ranking Ukrainian officials so as to keep what he was doing - his personal aspirations cloaked under the guise of "national security...down-graded to a sovereign nation's corruptibility, btw - a secret from the public.
3) he's chief executive and normal channels must obey him and Trump is free to go around them
Click to expand...
If "noraml channels must obey him, why the hell would he need to establish a back-channel to communicate with foreign officials? But on the whole, yes - and I want to make this abundantly clear: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FREE TO GO AROUND NORMAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS WHEN SPEAKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. His henchmen, Rudy Giuliani, are not.
 
sjmay said:
Just want to be clear on the bold, you think President's going through back channels, is an impeachable offense?
Click to expand...

Did I say establishing back-channel communications was an impeachable offense?

Nope, I don't think I did...never even mentioned it coming close to such. What I said was there's a reason for this woman's firing (which had absolutely nothing to do with the performance of her duties, btw.) and EVERYTHING with eing part of a larger scheme by this POTUS to get people out of the way he believed would NOT be amiable to what he was doing either because it broke with well established norms OR (as was firmly believed) it violated the law (domestic or international).
 
James972 said:
and of course he cant use normal deep state channels since the deep state blindly hates him and is hopefully about to go to jail for it. therefore he is fully justified in setting up his own channels, especially in the case of Obama's anti corruption czar going to Ukraine and corruptly taking $50K per months and laundering it through his son! without Trump we might have elected the Biden Mafia to the White House. One more thing to thank Donald for!!
Click to expand...

Such a STUPID comparison.

The only thing I will ask is this: In repaying the Iranian government their own money (plus interest...I assume that was included in the payment), was former Pres. Obama doing this for personal gain or in the interest of fostering better foreign relations and furthering national security interest?

IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE, IN FACT, PERSONAL I WILL ACCEPT YOUR COMPARATIVE ARGUMENT.

But you can't....because it wasn't.
 
Objective Voice said:
This isn't WWII era or the Cold War era where back-channel communications were necessary for national security reasons.
Click to expand...

it much worse given that deep state has just attempted coup against Trump, ( and will be criminally charged by Durham/IG) and now you want Trump to try
to use deep state to help him do investigation against Biden?? Do you understand now??? Notice I can make things simple enough for a liberal to understand?
 
Objective Voice said:
I want to make this abundantly clear: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS FREE TO GO AROUND NORMAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS WHEN SPEAKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. His henchmen, Rudy Giuliani, are not.
Click to expand...

Dear, President can have anyone he wants communicate to foreign leaders on his behalf. Daughter, son in law, state department, attorney, energy department etc etc. They all work for him. Got it now???????????
 
Objective Voice said:
there's a reason for this woman's firing (which had absolutely nothing to do with the performance of her duties, btw
Click to expand...

dear, her only significant duty was to support policies of President for whom she worked. 1+1=2
 
Objective Voice said:
part of a larger scheme by this POTUS to get people out of the way he believed would NOT be amiable to what he was doing either because it broke with well established norms OR (as was firmly believed) it violated the law (domestic or international).
Click to expand...

1) president has no obligation to use "established norms". In fact he was elected not to use them!!! What planet have you been on.

2) encouraging an investigation of Biden who corruptly took $50/k and laundered it through his son is what the law is for!!!!
 
Objective Voice said:
Such a STUPID comparison.
Click to expand...

the liberal says its stupid but yet as a typical liberal he is totally unable to say why it is stupid. Does the liberal even realize this is a debate site??
 
Objective Voice said:
was former Pres. Obama doing this for personal gain
Click to expand...

obviously he was!!! He campaigned on being soft on Muslims. He started to fulfill that pledge with an apology tour and then his policy was to give them $billions.
Had it been successful he would have been re elected much like Trump wants to get reelected!! 1+1=2
Next time you think you've got a great great please remember that you are a liberal.
 
Objective Voice said:
But you can't....because it wasn't.
Click to expand...

??? Lets say Biden and son go to prison for massive corruption. Does this benefit Trump personally or politically? Both obviously. Do you grasp this?? Imagine that I have to explain that to you. Do you see the way the MSM is leading you by the nose and you have no idea what they are doing to you?
 
James972 said:
she didn't support him so of course he would fire her and had every right to do so.
Click to expand...

Really? Show in her testimony where she claims she didn't support Pres. Trump's foreign policy initiatives in Ukraine or that she was disloyal to him? You can't.

Page 21 of Yovanovitch transcript:

Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told our embassy team to ignore the President's orders since he was going to be impeached. That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing to my embassy colleagues or anyone else.
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Dear, President can have anyone he wants communicate to foreign leaders on his behalf. Daughter, son in law, state department, attorney, energy department etc etc. They all work for him. Got it now???????????
Click to expand...

The key part of what missing in the case of Rudy Guiliani is "work for him in an official government capacity". Rudy Guiliani is not a government appointee. He holds no official government title. So, how he can "communicate" anything on behalf of the POTUS is rather ridiculous and you know it.

James972 said:
the liberal says its stupid but yet as a typical liberal he is totally unable to say why it is stupid. Does the liberal even realize this is a debate site??
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I did explain why your comparison was stupid. Had you just bothered to read and comprehend it you'd know why it's a stupid comparison.

As to the rest of your non-sense commentary (see your 2 posts above), they're just plain dumb!

Even IF former Pres. Obama had apologized to every Muslim nation on the planet, HOW DOES THAT BENEFIT HIM PERSONALLY? If anything, such an act of contrition helps keep America safer but it wouldn't help him personally. That's where your argument goes completely out the window.

On the Bidens' (Joe in particular) being imprisoned for corruption charges, it could benefit him personally. Thing is despite polls indicating that Joe Biden would defeat Pres. Trump head-to-head if the 2020 presidential elections were to be held today....

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - General Election: Trump vs. Biden

....we don't know what those polling stats would look like 1 year from now. However, we DO know they've been consistently showing Trump being defeated by Joe Biden. So, it's not a stretch at all to assume with with his greatest political rival on the left being out of the way and NO Republican challenger, Donald J. Trump, Sr. could easily win re-election and Joe Biden's sudden imprisonment or him being caught up in some legal scandal spread-headed by Pres. Trump via some back-channel wheeling and dealing would certainly benefit Trump. Absolutely!
 
James972,

You can also read starting on page 114 how the State Department was in discussions to retain Amb Yovanovitch at least until July 2019. So, if the POTUS had lost confidence in her, why would State still want her around?
 
James972,

You may also want to read: pages 118-125 and 129-142

You may also want to read pages 146 and 151...very important where the Trump Administration/U.S. defense support to Ukraine is concerned (re: Javelins). I think you might find that information very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Really? Show in her testimony where she claims she didn't support Pres. Trump's foreign policy initiatives in Ukraine or that she was disloyal to him? You can't.
Click to expand...

??? so are you suggesting that Trump fired her because she did support him??? Notice how its hard for a liberal to make sense ??
 
Objective Voice said:
The key part of what missing in the case of Rudy Guiliani is "work for him in an official government capacity". Rudy Guiliani is not a government appointee. He holds no official government title. So, how he can "communicate" anything on behalf of the POTUS is rather ridiculous and you know it.
Click to expand...

Rudy can communicate on behalf of president, in the case of Ukraine, by opening his mouth after the president said, "talk to Rudy". Notice how simple that is but how much is confused you? Please try harder!
 
Objective Voice said:
Even IF former Pres. Obama had apologized to every Muslim nation on the planet, HOW DOES THAT BENEFIT HIM PERSONALLY?
Click to expand...

Barry imagined the Muslim world would relate to him since he was half Muslim and it would end all the nasty terrorism stuff. That would make Barry a hero and insure his reelection much like the Biden investigation would insure Trumps reelection. See how simple that was?
 
James972,

Just stop already. Enough of the plausible-deniability :bs

Pres. Trump's entire MO on "truthiness" is to deny everything, admit nothing and force the other side to find him liable at best/guilty at worst. Right now, the only thing we don't have is a hand-written confession, audio tape or digital foot print to thoroughly link a sitting President to a bribery and/or extortion crime.

The POTUS has gone from "no crime was committed" to "yes, I did it but it wasn't a crime" to "it's a witch-hunt, blaming everyone else for his wrong-doing" to "you can't prove anything/they aren't following the rules". And people like you will hang on his every word (or that of his surrogates) and just keep coming up with another excuse to defend him while denying everything without every reviewing the evidence placed before you.

Now, you've claimed that the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine wasn't supportive on Pres. Trump's foreign policies in Ukraine. I've proven you otherwise.

You've claimed that the President can fire anyone within his Administration he wants which is true, but you cannot explain why the State Department was so willing to retain her services through 2020 if "the President had lost confidence in her" as he claims.

You've claimed that Rudy Guiliani can speak for the President in any fashion he desires, but that's so untrue. There are limits under which anyone can speak for the POTUS. First and foremost, one has to be in an official government capacity to speak for him internationally. Since Rudy Guiliani does not hold any government title as government appointee, his words don't hold any water where foreign policy is concerned. This is why many Ukrainian officials were confused as to who spoke for the POTUS: Amb Yonacovitch, EU Amb Sondland or Rudy Guiliani? As Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Guiliani can represent Trump's personal legal needs, but he has no official voice where it comes to U.S. foreign policy matters. That is, in effect, Rudy acting as a foreign agent which would be illegal if he isn't properly registered with the State Department as such (which I'm sure he is not!). But none of that matters to you. You'll just throw out another excuse to defend Trump's actions. All I can say is Good Luck with that.
 
Objective Voice said:
to thoroughly link a sitting President to a bribery and/or extortion crime.
.
Click to expand...

Biden took the $50k month bribe, extortion, and laundered it through his son while posing as Obama's anti-corruption Czar!! Can't beat that level of corruption.

Democrats were very happy when Obama denied aid to Ukraine even as they were being attacked by Russia!! Now its a crime? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
 
James972 said:
Biden took the $50k month bribe, extortion, and laundered it through his son while posing as Obama's anti-corruption Czar!! Can't beat that level of corruption.

Democrats were very happy when Obama denied aid to Ukraine even as they were being attacked by Russia!! Now its a crime? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

:shock: Don't you think if that were truly the case, the Trump AG - be it Jeff Sessions, Acting AG Whitaker or current AG Barr - would have opened an investigation? I mean, he did all but insist that AG Sessions open such an investigation on July 25, 2017. So, why in the two years since this "bribe, extortion, money laundering" you claim took place wasn't one ever initiated?
 
Objective Voice said:
:shock: Don't you think if that were truly the case, the Trump AG - be it Jeff Sessions, Acting AG Whitaker or current AG Barr - would have opened an investigation? I mean, he did all but insist that AG Sessions open such an investigation on July 25, 2017. So, why in the two years since this "bribe, extortion, money laundering" you claim took place wasn't one ever initiated?
Click to expand...

you want to know Why when our anticorruption Czar Corruptly took $50,000 a month and laundered it through his son from the most corrupt company in the most corrupt nation it was not investigated? same reason Democrats are not investigated for lying when they take the oath of office to defend the Constitution they hate, same reason the Democratic Party is now openly communisticAnd treasonously anti-American and there is no investigation. Now do you understand?

but of course it’s fine to investigate Trump Junior for taking an unsolicited phone call from a Russian that leads to 30 hours of testimony before Congress but no testimony from Biden Junior despite laundering $50,000 a month for years.1+1Equals two
 
James972 said:
you want to know Why when our anticorruption Czar Corruptly took $50,000 a month and laundered it through his son from the most corrupt company in the most corrupt nation it was not investigated? same reason Democrats are not investigated for lying when they take the oath of office to defend the Constitution they hate, same reason the Democratic Party is now openly communisticAnd treasonously anti-American and there is no investigation. Now do you understand?

but of course it’s fine to investigate Trump Junior for taking an unsolicited phone call from a Russian that leads to 30 hours of testimony before Congress but no testimony from Biden Junior despite laundering $50,000 a month for years.1+1Equals two
Click to expand...

Once again, if the U.S. GOVERNMENT, i.e., State Department or Department of Justice, truly believed Hunter Biden was involved in money laundering either agency or both should start their own investigations into the matter and then WORK with the foreign governments equivalent agencies sharing information they have on the case in order to make their case. YOU DON'T ask another nation to open an investigation into your own citizen. That's just flat out wrong on its face regardless of what you believe Hunter Biden may have done.

To put that in perspective, the U.S. government fought hard to get Otto Warmbier back from North Korea over a painting/poster he ripped off a wall. HE DID THE CRIME! Why are we pushing this narrative on Hunter Biden with no proof of criminal activity? Moreover, many Republicans though it perfectly fine for Michael Flynn, George Papadopolis, Carter Page and even Donald Trump, Sr., to make money while working abroad. So, why all of a sudden is it so wrong for Hunter Biden to get paid doing the exact same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom