Republicans Block Subpoenas for New Evidence as Impeachment Trial Begins

MSgt said:

This makes absolutely no sense. The man literally attempted to coerce a foreign government to help him undermine American democracy for cash.

The low bar was set in 1999 when the GOP went after Clinton for the blow job, then impeached him for lying about it. What you are witnessing right now is exactly what impeachment should be used for.

If there is a low bar being set, it's the GOP's willingness to declare that Trump's behavior is appropriate and acceptable, thereby opening the door for future Presidents who will do the same and worse. It is a direct slap to the faces of our Founding Fathers and an absolute insult to the integrity of American democracy.

And our politics has long been destabilized. It began with Newt Gingrich and the GOP's adoption of extremist politics. For eight years you watched the GOP strangle America's economic recovery just so that they could invent a scenario where the black guy in the White House was ruining America. And today, after having lost control of the irrational constituent mob that they created, the GOP panders to an abusive Executive who threatens them if they dare prove disloyal. He even called them onto his carpet to "discuss" where they stood during the House's trial before promising them campaign funds and future support. All this and so much more amounts to even Trump knowing that he is guilty.

Click to expand...

Clinton was impeached for perjury.
Every president has had (and most often used) the opportunity to exploit foreign affairs to benefit his reelection campaign.

Jack Hays said:

Clinton was impeached for perjury.

Click to expand...

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Let's not pretend that we can church that up to Trump levels of attempted treachery.

Jack Hays said:

Every president has had (and most often used) the opportunity to exploit foreign affairs to benefit his reelection campaign.

Click to expand...

Name an example that isn't perverted or massaged into a place that can fit your claim. I will remind you that there is a big difference between national interests and personal interests. And that there is a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected prior to an election.

I can name an actual example:

- Nixon's campaign scuttled Johnson's peace talks with Hanoi with the promise that if he were elected over his democrat competitor that he would give them a sweeter deal. Hanoi did abruptly end the talks, hurting the "Democrats" efforts. Nixon was elected. And he went on to escalate the war for years. The ultimate result here was that he quite probably sent more Americans to their unnecessary deaths so that he could live in the White House.

But this wasn't publicly known at the time. Only Johnson and a few heads at the CIA & Pentagon knew (maybe State Department). The problem was that if Johnson informed the public or tried to hold Nixon accountable for his treachery, it would reveal the spying program that revealed Nixon's campaign managers phone calls in the first place. He tried to handle it by informing a few Republican Senators to get word to Nixon to stop.

Other than my example, I don't know what you are talking about when you boldly declare that "every President" exploits foreign affairs for a personal election benefit. Nobody in our history has actually tried to use a foreign government to harm American citizens to get re-elected. Nobody.

MSgt said:

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Let's not pretend that we can church that up to Trump levels of attempted treachery.



Name an example that isn't perverted or massaged into a place that can fit your claim. I will remind you that there is a big difference between national interests and personal interests. And that there is a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected prior to an election.

I can name an actual example:

- Nixon's campaign scuttled Johnson's peace talks with Hanoi with the promise that if he were elected over his democrat competitor that he would give them a sweeter deal. Hanoi did abruptly end the talks, hurting the "Democrats" efforts. Nixon was elected. And he went on to escalate the war for years. The ultimate result here was that he quite probably sent more Americans to their unnecessary deaths so that he could live in the White House.

But this wasn't publicly known at the time. Only Johnson and a few heads at the CIA & Pentagon knew (maybe State Department). The problem was that if Johnson informed the public or tried to hold Nixon accountable for his treachery, it would reveal the spying program that revealed Nixon's campaign managers phone calls in the first place. He tried to handle it by informing a few Republican Senators to get word to Nixon to stop.

Other than my example, I don't know what you are talking about when you boldly declare that "every President" exploits foreign affairs for a personal election benefit. Nobody in our history has actually tried to use a foreign government to harm American citizens to get re-elected. Nobody.

Click to expand...

The blow job was not impeachable conduct. Lying about it under oath, perjury, was.

Here's a good example for you.

www.bbc.com › news › world-17519868 › obama-and-medvedev-ca...

[h=3]Obama and Medvedev caught in unguarded missile remarks ...[/h]

Mr Obama said he would have more "flexibility" on difficult issues such as the US missile defence plans after November's presidential election. ... a reference to his successor, the newly elected and second-time President Vladimir Putin.

Michael Cole said:

What seems natural is what actually happened. Everyone knew of the corruption, and everyone knew of the prosecutors failure to continue the investigation. That's what happened, and yes it seems quite natural.

It does not seem natural that the board members would be charged.

Click to expand...

Right. And why didn't they continue the investigation?

Anyway, from Trump's point of view, it made sense to put a pause on the release of this $400 million to the Ukraine until he felt comfortable that the money would go where it was intended. I'd have done he same thing and feel most responsible leaders in that position would have done the same thing. Wouldn't you?

MSgt said:

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Let's not pretend that we can church that up to Trump levels of attempted treachery.



Name an example that isn't perverted or massaged into a place that can fit your claim. I will remind you that there is a big difference between national interests and personal interests. And that there is a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected prior to an election.

I can name an actual example:

- Nixon's campaign scuttled Johnson's peace talks with Hanoi with the promise that if he were elected over his democrat competitor that he would give them a sweeter deal. Hanoi did abruptly end the talks, hurting the "Democrats" efforts. Nixon was elected. And he went on to escalate the war for years. The ultimate result here was that he quite probably sent more Americans to their unnecessary deaths so that he could live in the White House.

But this wasn't publicly known at the time. Only Johnson and a few heads at the CIA & Pentagon knew (maybe State Department). The problem was that if Johnson informed the public or tried to hold Nixon accountable for his treachery, it would reveal the spying program that revealed Nixon's campaign managers phone calls in the first place. He tried to handle it by informing a few Republican Senators to get word to Nixon to stop.

Other than my example, I don't know what you are talking about when you boldly declare that "every President" exploits foreign affairs for a personal election benefit. Nobody in our history has actually tried to use a foreign government to harm American citizens to get re-elected. Nobody.

Click to expand...

The problem we have is that really few people either associated with Trump or supporting him lack real reasoning skills, much less an honest knowledge and understanding of history.

MSgt said:

This makes absolutely no sense. The man literally attempted to coerce a foreign government to help him undermine American democracy for cash.

The low bar was set in 1999 when the GOP went after Clinton for the blow job, then impeached him for lying about it. What you are witnessing right now is exactly what impeachment should be used for.

If there is a low bar being set, it's the GOP's willingness to declare that Trump's behavior is appropriate and acceptable, thereby opening the door for future Presidents who will do the same and worse. It is a direct slap to the faces of our Founding Fathers and an absolute insult to the integrity of American democracy.

And our politics has long been destabilized. It began with Newt Gingrich and the GOP's adoption of extremist politics. For eight years you watched the GOP strangle America's economic recovery just so that they could invent a scenario where the black guy in the White House was ruining America. And today, after having lost control of the irrational constituent mob that they created, the GOP panders to an abusive Executive who threatens them if they dare prove disloyal. He even called them onto his carpet to "discuss" where they stood during the House's trial before promising them campaign funds and future support. All this and so much more amounts to even Trump knowing that he is guilty.

Click to expand...

Exposing Joe Biden's corruption undermines our democratic process? :lamo

Jack Hays said:

Clinton was impeached for perjury.
Every president has had (and most often used) the opportunity to exploit foreign affairs to benefit his reelection campaign.

Click to expand...

He was more than impeached. He was also fined and disbarred in Arkansas and in April 1999, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial and fined him over $90,000. He was also forced to pay Paula Jones $850,000 for sexul harrassment.

Posters who claim this was nothing but a BJ are trying to trivialize what happened for political purposes or just have no knowledge of the history.

Jack Hays said:

The blow job was not impeachable conduct. Lying about it under oath, perjury, was.

Click to expand...

You, me, and the entire universe understands this. The very clear point, Hays, is that the GOP saw the blow job as a means to force Clinton to either admit it to the world or lie about it. They impeached him on a technicality that they created with the goal of causing embarrassment. The man was even already in his second term. Now, the GOP chooses to pretend that an actual act of presidential treachery, with a mountain of evidence, isn't impeachable.

Jack Hays said:

Here's a good example for you.

Click to expand...

No, this is not a good example at all. And this is exactly why I told you that there is "a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected." The very fact that you went exactly where I expected you to tells me that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Your "every President" does it comes down to the typical Obama stupidity that is glorified by Conservatives everywhere.

And by the way, your two links go back to the same page. Discover some integrity.

prometeus said:

The problem we have is that really few people either associated with Trump or supporting him lack real reasoning skills, much less an honest knowledge and understanding of history.

Click to expand...

True, but the real problem is that none of Trump's supporters even care. It's precisely because they refuse to use reason, common sense, and logic that they are still searching for Obama's birth certificate. Their entire world view is shaped by FOX news propaganda and conspiracy theories. In the end, they can't tell the difference between fact and fiction and naturally assume that everybody else plays the same partisan game they play.

MSgt said:

You, me, and the entire universe understands this. The very clear point, Hays, is that the GOP saw the blow job as a means to force Clinton to either admit it to the world or lie about it. They impeached him on a technicality that they created with the goal of causing embarrassment. The man was even already in his second term. Now, the GOP chooses to pretend that an actual act of presidential treachery, with a mountain of evidence, isn't impeachable.



No, this is not a good example at all. And this is exactly why I told you that there is "a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected." The very fact that you went exactly where I expected you to tells me that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Your "every President" does it comes down to the typical Obama stupidity that is glorified by Conservatives everywhere.

And by the way, your two links go back to the same page. Discover some integrity.

Click to expand...

The "two links" are one link. Discover how your computer works.

MSgt said:

You, me, and the entire universe understands this. The very clear point, Hays, is that the GOP saw the blow job as a means to force Clinton to either admit it to the world or lie about it. They impeached him on a technicality that they created with the goal of causing embarrassment. The man was even already in his second term. Now, the GOP chooses to pretend that an actual act of presidential treachery, with a mountain of evidence, isn't impeachable.



No, this is not a good example at all. And this is exactly why I told you that there is "a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected." The very fact that you went exactly where I expected you to tells me that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Your "every President" does it comes down to the typical Obama stupidity that is glorified by Conservatives everywhere.

And by the way, your two links go back to the same page. Discover some integrity.

Click to expand...

You know little of the history, the lengthy record of Bill Clinton's sexuaal harassment, the pressure by NOW to stop men in power from harassing vulnerable women in the workplace (many men in the private sector also lost their jobs), or even that the vote for impeachment was bipartisan.

apdst said:

Exposing Joe Biden's corruption undermines our democratic process? :lamo

Click to expand...

Trump exposed nothing, because there is nothing.

- The very fact that he tried to avoid all official channels to "expose" this should tell even the most ignorant of our population that even Trump knew better.
- The very ****ing fact that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence about Biden corruption should be enough to invite even the dumbest of our population to accept reality.
- The very fact that nobody on the Right cared about this conspiracy theory in 2017 or 2018 should tell even the most pathetic of our population that this is all BS.

By the way, are you still waiting for the GOP and Trump to "lock her up?"

Attempting to coerce a foreign government to do harm to American citizens, in exchange for cash, in order to manipulate an American election, absolutely undermines American democracy. On the international level, it also sends the message that we are absolutely for sale.

Were you not so enthusiastic to worship this draft dodger, you may discover that you do indeed have the ability to actually respect the uniform you once wore and the country you pretend to love.

MSgt said:

You, me, and the entire universe understands this. The very clear point, Hays, is that the GOP saw the blow job as a means to force Clinton to either admit it to the world or lie about it. They impeached him on a technicality that they created with the goal of causing embarrassment. The man was even already in his second term. Now, the GOP chooses to pretend that an actual act of presidential treachery, with a mountain of evidence, isn't impeachable.

Click to expand...

The oath taken to give sworn testimony is not a technicality.
I had to counsel junior officers who were appalled that someone who would have been deemed unfit for service with us was our Commander-in-Chief.

MSgt said:

No, this is not a good example at all. And this is exactly why I told you that there is "a big difference between not being able to conduct certain national business prior to an election and sabotaging policy in order to get elected." The very fact that you went exactly where I expected you to tells me that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Your "every President" does it comes down to the typical Obama stupidity that is glorified by Conservatives everywhere.

Click to expand...

Nope. He undermined US national security by providing secret assurances to Putin while running for reelection.

MSgt said:

Trump exposed nothing, because there is nothing.

- The very fact that he tried to avoid all official channels to "expose" this should tell even the most ignorant of our population that even Trump knew better.
- The very ****ing fact that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence about Biden corruption should be enough to invite even the dumbest of our population to accept reality.
- The very fact that nobody on the Right cared about this conspiracy theory in 2017 or 2018 should tell even the most pathetic of our population that this is all BS.

By the way, are you still waiting for the GOP and Trump to "lock her up?"

Attempting to coerce a foreign government to do harm to American citizens, in exchange for cash, in order to manipulate an American election, absolutely undermines American democracy. On the international level, it also sends the message that we are absolutely for sale.

Were you not so enthusiastic to worship this draft dodger, you may discover that you do indeed have the ability to actually respect the uniform you once wore and the country you pretend to love.

Click to expand...

That's neither here, nor there. Only a deranged anti-Trumper would claim that exposing corruption somehow undermines our democratic process. :lamo

Fred C Dobbs II said:

He was more than impeached. He was also fined and disbarred in Arkansas and in April 1999, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for giving false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial and fined him over $90,000. He was also forced to pay Paula Jones $850,000 for sexul harrassment.

Posters who claim this was nothing but a BJ are trying to trivialize what happened for political purposes or just have no knowledge of the history.

Click to expand...

Except the civil issues had nothing to do with the GOP goal, did it? That impeachment was purely partisan, and based on an act of adultery, wasn't it? What came next in the civil courts had nothing to do with the GOP. And I find it highly hypercritical that you people seek to promote the GOP as a moral force against sexual harassment, while it actively seeks ways to show their loyalty to one who also has a history of sexual harassment (from his own admission).

All you people are trying to do is legitimize the partisan nonsense that the GOP did then, while defending the partisan nonsense that the GOP is doing now. After this, you go on to pretend that it is everybody else who is playing the partisan game.

apdst said:

That's neither here, nor there. Only a deranged anti-Trumper would claim that exposing corruption somehow undermines our democratic process. :lamo

Click to expand...

Yes, terribly inconvenient to be a former soldier and to "support the troop" when draft dodgers command your blind loyalty. It's "neither here, nor there" because there interferes with here. You have decided that your partisanship loyalty to a political party is more important to you than what you think you used to stand for.

And again, Trump exposed nothing because there was nothing to expose. After all these years, there is nothing. After the GOP owned Congress for four years, with Trump owning the White House for two, they did nothing. In trying to "discover" nothing, Trump avoided the official channels and used secrecy and a private attorney to invent "something." You are welcome to jump in here at any time. Because thus far, with all eyes on the situation, there continues to be nothing, even with Trump later publicly asking China to help him too.

It's just more of the same birth certificate, Benghazi, "lock her up" BS that you people cling to in order to define your ignorant world view. Just more of the same Conservative conspiracy theory nonsense. Do you know why the GOP and Trump get away with insulting your intelligence year after year? Why Trump took the "liberal hoax" of Global Warming and tried to make it a "Chinese hoax" too? Because you tell them that they are free to manipulate you. You actually see pride in not breaking ranks no matter how decrepit and unworthy they prove themselves to be to you.

MSgt said:

Except the civil issues had nothing to do with the GOP goal, did it? That impeachment was purely partisan, and based on an act of adultery, wasn't it? What came next in the civil courts had nothing to do with the GOP. And I find it highly hypercritical that you people seek to promote the GOP as a moral force against sexual harassment, while it actively seeks ways to show their loyalty to one who also has a history of sexual harassment (from his own admission).

All you people are trying to do is legitimize the partisan nonsense that the GOP did then, while defending the partisan nonsense that the GOP is doing now. After this, you go on to pretend that it is everybody else who is playing the partisan game.

Click to expand...

Your facts are your own and have nothing to do with the law, the politics, or the mood of the day. The GOP was actually going against public sentiment, and the media, but felt that the lies, rapes, and serial sexual harassment had to stop. It was also not partisan, as you claimed. Democrats voted against him as well. You should move on to a subject with which you're more familiar.

Fred C Dobbs II said:

Your facts are your own and have nothing to do with the law, the politics, or the mood of the day. The GOP was actually going against public sentiment, and the media, but felt that the lies, rapes, and serial sexual harassment had to stop. It was also not partisan, as you claimed. Democrats voted against him as well. You should move on to a subject with which you're more familiar.

Click to expand...

This is total BS and you prove that you are the partisan. The history is well documented and none of your benevolent revisionism will change that.

Gingrich had been running a scathing political crusade against Clinton for years and escalating the use of the filibuster just to clog legislative efforts. This is all documented. When this issue occurred he launched the GOP into a mission to embarrass him. Forcing Clinton to either admit it or lie about it was the goal. Admitting it would have sufficed. Lying about it allowed Gingrich to use that technicality to impeach, which is exactly what the Republican-led House did. The Republican-led Senate acquitted only because Republicans couldn't unanimously achieve the 67 votes needed. And all of it was based on Clinton trying to avoid the embarrassment of his adultery, not some betrayal of national interests.

It was absolutely partisan and the very fact that they now embrace a "***** grabber" while ignoring any and all sexual harassment charges upon any Republican proves it.

You may have felt a certain disgust towards his adultery, as did I, but the GOP was far more shrewd and politically motivated than you are apparently willing to allow them to own.

[

QUOTE=MSgt;1071260742]Trump exposed nothing, because there is nothing.

Click to expand...

Maybe so.

-

The very fact that he tried to avoid all official channels to "expose" this should tell even the most ignorant of our population that even Trump knew better.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with private citizens investigating presdiential candidates in foreign countries.
We learned that in 2016.

-

The very ****ing fact that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence about Biden corruption should be enough to invite even the dumbest of our population to accept reality.

Click to expand...

Mr. Biden said what he said when his son worked where he worked.
Its more evidence that what existed to actually launch the investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016.

-

The very fact that nobody on the Right cared about this conspiracy theory in 2017 or 2018 should tell even the most pathetic of our population that this is all BS.

Click to expand...

We were all focused upon the conspiracy theory that said Mr. Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
Once that conspiracy theory was firmly put to bed, the question became why did the Obama Admin buy into it?

Attempting to coerce a foreign government to do harm to American citizens, in exchange for cash, in order to manipulate an American election, absolutely undermines American democracy.

Click to expand...

Why are we assuming that anyone would have taken Ukraine seriously had they in fact launched an investigation into Mr. Biden?

Fred C Dobbs II said:

The most corrupt person in modern Ukrainian history is Mykola_Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma when Hunter Biden was first hired to sit on the board at $1 million per year, hiis partner getting another million. He was receiving payments for five years. This is suspicious, given that he had no experience, speaks no Ukrainian, never attended meetings and his father was vice President.

While being investigated Zlochevsky fled the country with, according to reports and the Ukrainian government, billions of dollars. Although Biden claims Shokin was fired because of not investigating Burisma quickly enough his own son was on the Burisma Board. Wouldn't it seem natural that Hunter either told his father of the ongoing corruption or would have been charged as well?

The transcript of the phone call with Zelensky clearly states that he expects the investigation to continue. "Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. .

You can get a great summary here. YouTube

Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds - Reuters

Hunter Biden's employer

Mykola Zlochevsky - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Fred, we both can agree that Zlochevsky was corrupt. But that fact alone doesn't make Hunter Biden culpable for his actions. The bulk of the corruption involving Zlochevsky occurred in the 2010-2014 time frame when he was simultaneously running Burisma and holding high offices within the Yanukovich Administration. That all came to an end with Yanukovich's overthrow in February 2014. Zlochevsky lost his government positions that he was using to leverage corruption. There was a new regime in Kiev, and so Burisma needed to clean house - and a big part of that was overhauling it's Board of Directors. Zlochevky's cronies were out, and a new Board more acceptable to the fresh Ukrainian Government was brought in. Biden was one of many new directors appointed to the Board in the wake of the Euromaidan. I'm sure from Zlochevsky's point of view, he was a perfect choice... as the US Vice President's son, it gave him an image of gravitas, but his thin resume probably meant he wouldn't make waves for him in his bid to hold unto corporate power. However, it didn't quite work out that way - Biden was appointed to the Board in April, and by December that new Board had ousted Zlochevsky as CEO.

So, from my perspective, Biden was part of the effort to reform and rebuild Burisma from it's corrupt past. You can spin it your way, I'll spin it mine. But whatever the truth of the matter actually is, unless or until definitive and credible evidence against him is produced that goes beyond the typical Republican fare of innuendo, conspiracy theory, and guilt by association - In short, evidence that meets the legal standard of reasonable suspicion - then he cannot be made the target of a legitimate criminal investigation, and the President was operating with corrupt intent when he tried to coerce the Ukrainians to launch such an investigation.

Fred C Dobbs II said:

Right. And why didn't they continue the investigation?

Anyway, from Trump's point of view, it made sense to put a pause on the release of this $400 million to the Ukraine until he felt comfortable that the money would go where it was intended. I'd have done he same thing and feel most responsible leaders in that position would have done the same thing. Wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

I would have trusted the DOD certification, and if that didn't convince me, I'd ask them to do it again. I most certainly wouldn't ask the new president to investigate something that happened in 2015, based on a hunch. C'mon Fred, you don't seriously believe Trump cares about. corruption.

Patrick Philbin just took Schiff to the woodshed. He made the argument that SCOTUS has already ruled that a defendant must be given all indictments before the trial, and that it in unconstitutional to try a defendant on charges that were not included in the indictments.

This argument was made after Schiff decided to panic and throw out the accusation of bribery again, even though that accusation wasn't in the articles of impeachment.

Schiff is a scumbag.

I don't know about some of you but if I was accused of a crime I'd want every witness who could vouch for my innocence to testify and would hand over whatever proof that would exonerate me. I wouldn't want my allies to block my attempts to clear my name.

Michael Cole said:

I would have trusted the DOD certification, and if that didn't convince me, I'd ask them to do it again. I most certainly wouldn't ask the new president to investigate something that happened in 2015, based on a hunch. C'mon Fred, you don't seriously believe Trump cares about. corruption.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Zelensky know what happened in 2015 and, yes, I do believe both Presidents want an end to corruption - until there is strong evidence to the contrary.