• 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!

Pelosi directs House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

Absolutely, now let's change that up,

Let's say you embezzled money, I've got 13 witnesses that think you did it, believe you did it, but not one of them has any proof you did it, and when asked directly if they have knowledge of you doing it, they say no.

You are saying that it's perfectly fine to assume because you don't have any witnesses say you didn't do it.....that you actually did, and we can lock you up, right?

The problem is the 13 witnesses all corroborate my pattern of behavior, not the opposite. So, I'd be pretty ****ed, especially since my witnesses are unable to stand by their statements of my innocence under oath.
 
Tell me again how there is no history of Trump believing Ukraine was corrupt? This is from THREE WITNESSES'S TESTIMONIES.

"2. President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of
Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.
Multiple Democrat witnesses offered firsthand testimony of President Trump’s skeptical
view of Ukraine, as far back as September 2017. Ambassador Volker explained: “President
Trump demonstrated that he had a very deeply rooted negative view of Ukraine based on past
corruption. And that’s a reasonable position. Most people who would know anything about
Ukraine would think that.”112 He elaborated that the President’s concern about Ukraine was
genuine,113 and that this concern contributed to a delay in the meeting with President Zelensky.
He explained:

107 E.U.-Ukraine Ass’n Agreement, art. 14, Mar. 21, 2014, 57 Off. J. of the E.U. L161/3 (“In their cooperation on
justice, freedom and security, the Parties shall attach particular importance to the consolidation of the rule of law
and the reinforcement of institutions at all levels in the areas of administration in general and law enforcement and
the administration of justice in particular. Cooperation will, in particular, aim at strengthening the judiciary,
improving its efficiency, safeguarding its independence and impartiality, and combating corruption. Respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms will guide all cooperation on justice, freedom and security.”).
108 Kent deposition, supra note 65 at 105, 151.
109 Taylor deposition, supra note 47, at 86.
110 Volker transcribed interview, supra note 60, at 76.
111 Id. at 148-49.
112 Id. at 30.
113 Id. at 295.
17
So the issue as I understood it was this deep-rooted, skeptical view
of Ukraine, a negative view of Ukraine, preexisting 2019, you know,
going back. When I started this, I had one other meeting with
President Trump and [then-Ukrainian] President Poroshenko. It was
in September of 2017. And at that time he had a very skeptical view
of Ukraine. So I know he had a very deep-rooted skeptical view.
And my understanding at the time was that even though he agreed
in the [May23] meeting that we had with him, say, okay, I’ll invite
him, he didn’t really want to do it. And that’s why the meeting kept
being delayed and delayed. 114
Other testimony confirms Ambassador Volker’s statements. Former U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch confirmed the President’s skepticism, saying that she observed it
during President Trump’s meeting with President Poroshenko in September 2017.115 She
testified:
Q. Were you aware of the President’s deep-rooted skepticism about
Ukraine’s business environment?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you know about that?
A. That he—I mean, he shared that concern directly with President
Poroshenko in their first meeting in the Oval Office.116
Dr. Fiona Hill, NSC Senior Director for Europe, also testified that President Trump was “quite
publicly” skeptical of Ukraine and that “everyone has expressed great concerns about corruption
in Ukraine.”117 Catherine Croft, a former NSC director, similarly attested to President’s Trump
skepticism when she staffed President Trump for two Ukraine matters in 2017, explaining:
“Throughout both, I heard, directly and indirectly, President Trump described Ukraine as a country."
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.

QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.


End of story.

I swear, you'll argue if water is wet.
 
Really? The transcript says that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden? Because...I'm pretty damn sure he ended it with....whatever you can do.....

That's pretty ****ing open ended for a direct demand......I mean ****, I would think If I wanted something that badly....I wouldn't leave it to chance that whatever they could do..is nothing.
Again, you're just gaslighting.

We all saw the transcript and Trump directly asks for an investigation into the Bidens.
 
Tell me again how there is no history of Trump believing Ukraine was corrupt? This is from THREE WITNESSES'S TESTIMONIES.

"2. President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of
Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.
Multiple Democrat witnesses offered firsthand testimony of President Trump’s skeptical
view of Ukraine, as far back as September 2017. Ambassador Volker explained: “President
Trump demonstrated that he had a very deeply rooted negative view of Ukraine based on past
corruption. And that’s a reasonable position. Most people who would know anything about
Ukraine would think that.”112 He elaborated that the President’s concern about Ukraine was
genuine,113 and that this concern contributed to a delay in the meeting with President Zelensky.
He explained:

107 E.U.-Ukraine Ass’n Agreement, art. 14, Mar. 21, 2014, 57 Off. J. of the E.U. L161/3 (“In their cooperation on
justice, freedom and security, the Parties shall attach particular importance to the consolidation of the rule of law
and the reinforcement of institutions at all levels in the areas of administration in general and law enforcement and
the administration of justice in particular. Cooperation will, in particular, aim at strengthening the judiciary,
improving its efficiency, safeguarding its independence and impartiality, and combating corruption. Respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms will guide all cooperation on justice, freedom and security.”).
108 Kent deposition, supra note 65 at 105, 151.
109 Taylor deposition, supra note 47, at 86.
110 Volker transcribed interview, supra note 60, at 76.
111 Id. at 148-49.
112 Id. at 30.
113 Id. at 295.
17
So the issue as I understood it was this deep-rooted, skeptical view
of Ukraine, a negative view of Ukraine, preexisting 2019, you know,
going back. When I started this, I had one other meeting with
President Trump and [then-Ukrainian] President Poroshenko. It was
in September of 2017. And at that time he had a very skeptical view
of Ukraine. So I know he had a very deep-rooted skeptical view.
And my understanding at the time was that even though he agreed
in the [May23] meeting that we had with him, say, okay, I’ll invite
him, he didn’t really want to do it. And that’s why the meeting kept
being delayed and delayed. 114
Other testimony confirms Ambassador Volker’s statements. Former U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch confirmed the President’s skepticism, saying that she observed it
during President Trump’s meeting with President Poroshenko in September 2017.115 She
testified:
Q. Were you aware of the President’s deep-rooted skepticism about
Ukraine’s business environment?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you know about that?
A. That he—I mean, he shared that concern directly with President
Poroshenko in their first meeting in the Oval Office.116
Dr. Fiona Hill, NSC Senior Director for Europe, also testified that President Trump was “quite
publicly” skeptical of Ukraine and that “everyone has expressed great concerns about corruption
in Ukraine.”117 Catherine Croft, a former NSC director, similarly attested to President’s Trump
skepticism when she staffed President Trump for two Ukraine matters in 2017, explaining:
“Throughout both, I heard, directly and indirectly, President Trump described Ukraine as a country."

Trump.feels.that way because of the asterisk after his win.

Full stop.

He can't stand it.

So be chooses to believe what he saw in conservative porn.

I doubt you'd be so strident in your defense if he wanted Ukraine to give up all the evidence they have that aliens were working with the democrats.

Wait. I take that back. If it was the dems involved then aliens it is, right?
 
LMAO and with that asinine comment, I'm going to bed,

So trump HASN'T defied the house investigation outright?

I don't watch fox, so I really don't know what nonsense you may believe.
 
The problem is the 13 witnesses all corroborate my pattern of behavior, not the opposite. So, I'd be pretty ****ed, especially since my witnesses are unable to stand by their statements of my innocence under oath.

Which is easy enough to do when they decide to lie about it. Which is why hearsay and opinion are not actually good point of evidence in a court of law.
 
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.

QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.


End of story.

I swear, you'll argue if water is wet.

You do realize that you just shot the whole impeachment effort right in the foot right?
 
The mentioning of the Bidens and the request for a favor.

Requesting a favor is not a QPQ. Trump didn't say to him "do me a favor or else" and Zelenski didn't interpret it that way either.

QPQ has already been established. If you continue denying it, it's pointless to continue. It'd be nice if a conservative would make an honest argument for once. An honest argument includes admitting that Trump did it.

It certainly has not been established or anything even close.

I may be a conservative but I'm not a Trump fan. I didn't support him in 2016, nor did I vote for him. Since the day I joined this forum, I have presented nothing but honest arguments. I may get things wrong on occasion, but I don't make **** up. Here is my full argument on this issue. It's based entirely on the known facts and is as honest as honest gets.

First, I have never said Trump is innocent and there was no QPQ. As I have stated before, there very well could have been a QPQ and knowing how Trump operates, it wouldn't surprise me if there was... But believing there was a QPQ and proving there was a QPQ are 2 completely different things. Proving there was a QPQ requires credible, concrete evidence and thus far, none has been presented. There's been no document or recording presented that substantiates the charge, nor has anyone testified that they heard Trump, or anyone speaking on his behalf, say there was a QPQ tied to the release of the Ukrainian aid. Not one person who testified to congress had any first hand knowledge of a QPQ either. Every one of them who said or implied a QPQ existed, based that believe on second and third hand knowledge, or simply presumed it to be the case. Even though Sondland did provide first hand testimony of his conversation with Trump, I'm discounting it because it apparently came after he learned of the accusations.

The only document that exists on the issue is the transcripts of the call. It has all the individual elements a person would expect to find when looking for a QPQ except one... and that one thing is the words that tie the aid and the favor conditionally together. Since there was no "or else" in that transcript, it makes accusation of a QPQ based on it, the same as it was with the witness testimony... speculation that lacks any evidentiary support.

When you factor in that the QPQ accusations aren't even a case of "he said, she said", it doesn't look good for the accusers. Trump's supposed victim, President Zelenski, who Trump is accused of using millions in aid to try an bribe or extort for personal political gain, says the accusations made by democrats and the anti-Trump crowd are false, and that there was no QPQ, which is supported by the fact that not one of the supposed demands Trump made of Zelenski were ever met during the 6 weeks between the phone call and the time the aid was released.

Not only is there no concrete evidence to support the QPQ accusation, there isn't any circumstantial evidence either... There isn't one person with any first hand knowledge that has disputed Trump's version of events, not even the person Trump is accused victimizing. Everything presented thus far against the president has been based upon speculation, presumption, and/or opinion. Believing Trump is guilty doesn't constitute evidence and it sure as hell doesn't justify an impeachment trial in the Senate.

.
 
You do realize that you just shot the whole impeachment effort right in the foot right?
That's right, just keep throwing out assertions.
 
That's right, just keep throwing out assertions.

Claiming that I'm making assertions, is rather comical at this point. Given that this whole impeachment fiasco has been nothing but assertions, and opinions.

But no, you managed to show that Trump's request for an investigation was not based on getting dirt on Biden. It was to actually look into corruption.
 
Requesting a favor is not a QPQ. Trump didn't say to him "do me a favor or else" and Zelenski didn't interpret it that way either.



It certainly has not been established or anything even close.

I may be a conservative but I'm not a Trump fan. I didn't support him in 2016, nor did I vote for him. Since the day I joined this forum, I have presented nothing but honest arguments. I may get things wrong on occasion, but I don't make **** up. Here is my full argument on this issue. It's based entirely on the known facts and is as honest as honest gets.

First, I have never said Trump is innocent and there was no QPQ. As I have stated before, there very well could have been a QPQ and knowing how Trump operates, it wouldn't surprise me if there was... But believing there was a QPQ and proving there was a QPQ are 2 completely different things. Proving there was a QPQ requires credible, concrete evidence and thus far, none has been presented. There's been no document or recording presented that substantiates the charge, nor has anyone testified that they heard Trump, or anyone speaking on his behalf, say there was a QPQ tied to the release of the Ukrainian aid. Not one person who testified to congress had any first hand knowledge of a QPQ either. Every one of them who said or implied a QPQ existed, based that believe on second and third hand knowledge, or simply presumed it to be the case. Even though Sondland did provide first hand testimony of his conversation with Trump, I'm discounting it because it apparently came after he learned of the accusations.

The only document that exists on the issue is the transcripts of the call. It has all the individual elements a person would expect to find when looking for a QPQ except one... and that one thing is the words that tie the aid and the favor conditionally together. Since there was no "or else" in that transcript, it makes accusation of a QPQ based on it, the same as it was with the witness testimony... speculation that lacks any evidentiary support.

When you factor in that the QPQ accusations aren't even a case of "he said, she said", it doesn't look good for the accusers. Trump's supposed victim, President Zelenski, who Trump is accused of using millions in aid to try an bribe or extort for personal political gain, says the accusations made by democrats and the anti-Trump crowd are false, and that there was no QPQ, which is supported by the fact that not one of the supposed demands Trump made of Zelenski were ever met during the 6 weeks between the phone call and the time the aid was released.

Not only is there no concrete evidence to support the QPQ accusation, there isn't any circumstantial evidence either... There isn't one person with any first hand knowledge that has disputed Trump's version of events, not even the person Trump is accused victimizing. Everything presented thus far against the president has been based upon speculation, presumption, and/or opinion. Believing Trump is guilty doesn't constitute evidence and it sure as hell doesn't justify an impeachment trial in the Senate.

.
You claiming not to be a Trump fan is pretty rich. Thanks for the laugh.

The idea that the conclusions of Trump's handpicked diplomats don't have credibility, or that they are just simple hearsay really speaks volumes about how desperate conservatives are at this point.

The "favor" that Trump requested wasn't just any old favor. It was a request that Zelinsky publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's and the DNC, which Sondland, Kent, and Volker all testified wasn't even about an actual investigation, and was instead about the optics of Zelinsky announcing one.

The idea that Trump had was to get Zelinsky to announce these investigations, giving the public the appearance that the Ukraine was conducting an independent investigation, all the while Trump and him would keep secret the fact that this was all being done at Trump's request and not independent at all.

That alone is a massive abuse of the presidency and the influence it has on the public. No doubt about it. It's what conservatives have been accusing Obama of for years now.

The idea that Trump has to make a direct linkage between the aid and WH meeting and these investigations is absurd. This is not a criminal court of law. Trump does not lose his freedom if convicted - only the presidency. Thus, the principle of a proof beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply in this proceeding; nor did it apply in previous impeachments.

The aid and WH meeting (the latter of which Sondland DID admit was a QPQ) weren't held up on their own. Either it was Mulvaney and Pompeo acting behind Trump's back, or Trump himself gave the order. Given that the former two have not volunteered that they alone were responsible for the freeze on the aid and WH meeting, it's obvious Trump himself directed these orders.
 
You claiming not to be a Trump fan is pretty rich. Thanks for the laugh.

The idea that the conclusions of Trump's handpicked diplomats don't have credibility, or that they are just simple hearsay really speaks volumes about how desperate conservatives are at this point.

The "favor" that Trump requested wasn't just any old favor. It was a request that Zelinsky publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's and the DNC, which Sondland, Kent, and Volker all testified wasn't even about an actual investigation, and was instead about the optics of Zelinsky announcing one.

The idea that Trump had was to get Zelinsky to announce these investigations, giving the public the appearance that the Ukraine was conducting an independent investigation, all the while Trump and him would keep secret the fact that this was all being done at Trump's request and not independent at all.

That alone is a massive abuse of the presidency and the influence it has on the public. No doubt about it. It's what conservatives have been accusing Obama of for years now.

The idea that Trump has to make a direct linkage between the aid and WH meeting and these investigations is absurd. This is not a criminal court of law. Trump does not lose his freedom if convicted - only the presidency. Thus, the principle of a proof beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply in this proceeding; nor did it apply in previous impeachments.

The aid and WH meeting (the latter of which Sondland DID admit was a QPQ) weren't held up on their own. Either it was Mulvaney and Pompeo acting behind Trump's back, or Trump himself gave the order. Given that the former two have not volunteered that they alone were responsible for the freeze on the aid and WH meeting, it's obvious Trump himself directed these orders.

There are places on this site meant for posting conspiracy theories.

If you're going to continue along this line of thought, then you might want to start there.
 
Claiming that I'm making assertions, is rather comical at this point. Given that this whole impeachment fiasco has been nothing but assertions, and opinions.

But no, you managed to show that Trump's request for an investigation was not based on getting dirt on Biden. It was to actually look into corruption.
What corruption in the Ukraine was Trump interested in outside of Burisma and Crowdstrike?

Answer: None. He was only interested in activities related to Democrats. So, when they talk about "corruption" being the reason for the hold, they are talking about Trump wanting Democrats investigated.

Do you really believe Trump actually cares about investigated corruption? God damn, brother. You really need someone to accompany you when you go buy a used car.
 
There are places on this site meant for posting conspiracy theories.

If you're going to continue along this line of thought, then you might want to start there.
It's actually not a hard line of thought to follow, when one puts down the MAGA pipe, and allows common sense and reason to guide them. But then you wouldn't know anything about that.

And it's funny to hear you complain about "conspiracy theories", when you've got a track record peddling some real doozies.
 
It's actually not a hard line of thought to follow, when one puts down the MAGA pipe, and allows common sense and reason to guide them. But then you wouldn't know anything about that.

Once again, your own assumptions aside. You really need to actually try to follow logical discussions.

This "Orange man bad" problem that infects you isn't really lending itself any credit, when it comes to actual intellectual discussions.

Then again, the "pipe" remark is most likely another racist joke that's being specifically aimed at me, which is my assumption, yes. So I honestly don't really care at this point.

How about this, what is your main point of evidence for Trump being impeached?
 
T.B.D., and unlikely IMO. But I do celebrate her having ascended to the speakership twice, which is a very rare feat!

She is like a painted dorm mother overseeing a wild bunch of homeless and helpless and mindless children. Homeless because the USA is not the home they celebrate, helpless because they cannot do anything of any value, especially while they remain busy trying to bring down the invincible giant that slew their dragon lady in 2016, and mindless because their thoughts must come from democrat mob headquarters after passing through all the necessary corrections, edits, emendations, manipulations, biased interpretations, delusions, deceptions, confusions and whatever else the democrat mob bosses think necessary to make "truth" match democrat narratives.
 
Because it was for personal gain.
All politicians make use of information for political advantage. How is this any different that what your favorite democrats are doing?

Did trump demand an announcement of an investigation into the company?
Not that I recall. I do recall he reminded them that part of the agreement for financial aid was going after corruption. Now if the two are tied... Are you claiming they are tied?

No he named a political rivals son.
Are the facts taboo?

You can try to spin this anyway you want but it always lands on extortion and abuse of power, not to mention the solicitation of a foreign governments assistance to influence an American election.
Your side is the one spinning all of this.

Let's put it this way if this happened when the founders were still around he would have been strung up by now, they had no time for traitors..
Your opinion is noted.
 
Umm...no....the stories of Biden corruption comes from Biden himself admitting that he withheld aid to get Shokin fired.....

And still almost nothing about James Biden, who has most certainly profited by getting jobs he was unqualified for.
 
I was watching the breaking news with pelosi. I said to my nephews we have another possible dictator on our hands. Her facial expression says it all.

Does she hate our President ?
As the usual liberal/Demo does,she lies pretending to be insulted. Of course she hates President Donald Trump's asspirin with vengeance and can't wait to get him out of office. This is the main problem with these Demos. Not caring about America but punishing those who do.
pelosi...it's not going to happen. You only showing Americans how delusional the liberal/Demo party has become for a long time and we are sick of it.
 
The only president that I could've got on board with being impeached was W. Bush. I would've loved for democrats to do that, because of the Iraq War. Bush was a war monger.

Really? How about the democrats that voted for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

Here are the yeas and nays in the House:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Here ate the yeas and nays in the senate:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

Then there is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that President Clinton signed while he was still in office requiring regime change in Iraq. It passed the senate with unanimous consent, and here is the house votes of 360 to 38:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml


You must be getting your facts from activists.

By your standard, everyone who voted "YES" should lose their office.
 
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.

QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.


End of story.

I swear, you'll argue if water is wet.

Funny how you don't have the full context. Did you omit it, or did the lying media omit it that you copied it from?

He goes on to explain the money has to be spent because it was authorized by congress, unless there are valid reasons to revoke the authorization. He changes what he said about it being illegal to withhold it, in the same session.
 
What corruption in the Ukraine was Trump interested in outside of Burisma and Crowdstrike?

Answer: None. He was only interested in activities related to Democrats. So, when they talk about "corruption" being the reason for the hold, they are talking about Trump wanting Democrats investigated.

Do you really believe Trump actually cares about investigated corruption? God damn, brother. You really need someone to accompany you when you go buy a used car.

Your opinion is noted.

What facts to you have to support that allegation?
 
You claiming not to be a Trump fan is pretty rich. Thanks for the laugh.

Not liking the guy, doesn't blind me to the truth. Facts are facts regardless of ideology, something very few leftists can understand.

The idea that the conclusions of Trump's handpicked diplomats don't have credibility, or that they are just simple hearsay really speaks volumes about how desperate conservatives are at this point.

Trump appointing them doesn't magically transform their speculation and assumptions into facts. Not one of them had any first hand information.

The "favor" that Trump requested wasn't just any old favor. It was a request that Zelinsky publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's and the DNC, which Sondland, Kent, and Volker all testified wasn't even about an actual investigation, and was instead about the optics of Zelinsky announcing one.

Since that never took place, you can't establish there was a quid pro quo.

Bed time for me... See ya.
 
Really? How about the democrats that voted for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

Here are the yeas and nays in the House:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Here ate the yeas and nays in the senate:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

Then there is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that President Clinton signed while he was still in office requiring regime change in Iraq. It passed the senate with unanimous consent, and here is the house votes of 360 to 38:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml


You must be getting your facts from activists.

By your standard, everyone who voted "YES" should lose their office.
Hell yes, they should.
 
Back
Top Bottom