• 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!

The Traitors Among Us

ludin said:
show me where in the constitution it says the president cannot investigate corruption or possible illegal acts by a citizens committed in another country. Just because biden is running g for office does not make him immune to investigations in illegal actions.
Click to expand...
But, Ukraine has a lot of corruptions issues. So, of all the issues of corruption involving Ukraine he cherry picks the ONLY one which, if he gets Zelenski, not just to actually investigate Biden, if he gets Zelenski just to announce that they are investigating Biden, that would put a taint on Biden, and thus help Trump politically. Remember, that was the primary objective, more than the investigation, it was the announcement first AND then the actual investigation Trump was after. When the DOJ investigates, or the FBI, they NEVER announce who they are investigating, not as a policy, so why does Trump want Zelenski to announce it? How does that benefit America foreign policy in any way? It doen't.

The ONLY reason Trump,. therefore, was to benefit himself politically. When asked about it on TV Trump said not only should Ukraine investigate Biden, so should China.

The only thing concerning Trump is not corruption, per se, but the investigation of Biden. Why? Because Biden, as polls show, put him as his biggest most likely opposition.

If it were merely corruption Trump was after, he wouldn't be cherry picking it. MOreover, the aid was given the go signal, the intel staff had certified that Ukraine was serious about doing something regarding it's corruption with the new president, and there was NO reason for Trump to withhold aid, Ukraine had already been cleared for the aid, corruption-wise.

And so, the solicitation is an emoluments violation, the conditioning of it to perform those two acts in order to receive the aid makes it Bribery.
accusations require proof where is your proof?
According to 16 witnesses there is no proof.
Click to expand...
Vindman was a direct witness to the fact that Trump was soliticiting Zelenski. Not only that, Trump announced in on TV, it was all Trump seemed to be concerned about.

Trump announced "no quid pro quo" immediately after the WB report. Why did he do that? Consciousness of guilt, that's why. To counter the narrative that the facts portrayed.

Bolton didn't tell Yovanovich 'Tell the lawyers' becuase Guiliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Trump, etc., were playing checkers.

Nine foreign service officers are smart enough to figure out what the scheme they were trying to hatch was, they were all in agreement on this point, and they wouldn't jeopardize what is their life's work, the Foreign service, by lying under oath, many things about what was going on led them to understand what was going on, it was obvious as hell, and they were unanimous on this point, and Bolton didn't want to be part of the 'Drug Deal'.

And why don't all of those guys testify, why are they defying a subpoena?

Because, in order to help Trump, they would have to lie under oath, and they know that they can defy a subpoena, and get away with it, a fate much easier than lying under oath, which could put anyone of them in the slammer.

From the Intel Committee report (from the phone call transcript):

"Trump pushed Zelensky to meet with his top cop, US Attorney General William Barr, who was overseeing a review into the origins of the Russia investigation. The President also asked Zelensky to meet with Giuliani, who was pushing both the conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to bring down Trump’s campaign in 2016 and the idea that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, should be investigated. Trump brought up the Bidens during his call with Zelensky. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden."

And:

"Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to 'get over it.' "
Conspiracy theories are 3 doors down on the left.

yovanavich says otherwise so prove she is lying.

speculation and conspiracy theory.
No evidence to support your maze of ghosts.
Click to expand...


see above.

In addition to the above, IN PLAIN VIEW TO THE WORLD, Trump directed his staff to defy ALL subpoenas, administrative and direct testimony.


That is Obstruction of Congress, Contempt Of Congress, and Abuse of power
A
There are at least 4 open and shut cases of Obstruction of Justice, in the Mueller report, which also adds up to Abuse of Power.
 
Last edited:
The testimony under oath is that what Trump really wanted was an announcement of an Investigation into the Bidens by Ukraine. Trump actually did not give a rats behind about an actual investigation.
 
redbeer said:
A video of Joe Biden committing a "quid pro quo" came out, so it is the Presidents responsibility to check for corruption and fraud, especially before releasing monies to a foreign government, especially one which was corrupt, in of itself.
Click to expand...
Our government historically horse trades in the foreign policy arena, it's common. The "quo" of the quid pro quo was a benefit to US Foreign Policy in the region, and that is why this practice is acceptable. In Biden's case, the threat to withold was not specific military aid, it was a threat to withold loan gaurantees if they didn't fire a corrupt prosecutor ( Shokin ).

In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign. That is the difference.

Trump was concerned about the corruption in Ukraine, especially after seeing what Joe Biden has done, hence why the monies was withheld, not because of looking to beat a political opponent. Stop projecting fantasies.

Amazing....Joe Biden on video, pure proof positive of a "quid pro quo", but you are looking to the weeds for anything on Trump, lol....what a joke.

Yeah, just keep living in fantasy land with all the other fairies.
Click to expand...

See above regarding Biden.

I'll give you the same answer I gave Ludin, who is promulgating the same line as you are:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...7283-traitors-among-us-13.html#post1071005090
 
I hadn't had the opportunity to follow up on this point:
NWRatCon said:
I'll note that Trump ran for President in 2000. So, Russian interest probably went back that far, and likely earlier. I think the influence campaign began in earnest, though, in 2013.
Click to expand...
To which the response was:
ArtemisBarca said:
I think the “influence” narrative is wrong the opposite way lol..

Russia wasn’t trying to “influence the election” or pervert democracy..

They were trying to help trump win..

There is a difference.

I’m not sure there would have been a disinformation campaign if not for them having a choice candidate they wanted..

“Perverting our democracy “ and influencing our elections” sounds intangible.. like there is no specific bad guy.. they just wanted chaos..

That is not the case.. they specifically backed trump and only trump the whole time.. even during the nomination.
Click to expand...
I think this was a misinterpretation of my post. The influence campaign wasn't about the election, it was the influence campaign regarding Trump. These are related, but separate, issues.

I think it is important to remember what the FSB considers an "asset".
The Russians – like the Soviets before them – generally have a much larger stable of assets. They utilize fellow travelers, terrorists, and members of fringe groups as well as maintaining friendships with people who either knowingly or unknowingly accept their propaganda. They call these people “useful idiots.” We have accordingly seen that the Russians use all sorts of people for their benefit – propagandists, useful idiots, witting collaborators, sympathizers, hackers, students, recruited spies, and oligarchs who do the bidding of the Kremlin.
Click to expand...
Is Trump a Russian Agent?: Explaining Terms of Art and Examining the Facts (Just Security). An "asset" is a less formal participant than an "agent" in this regard.

Trump is easily manipulated.
To a professional he is nightmare. Yes, he is a cauldron of potentially exploitable vulnerabilities. He is greedy, has lax morals and shame, isn’t particularly patriotic, has a difficult time with right and wrong and is easy to manipulate. He would be easy to exploit and entice into stepping over the line into a conspiratorial relationship. However, he would be essentially impossible to control. His narcissism, poor memory and ego would make it all but impossible for him to follow directions and keep a secret. He would be a nightmare to debrief. He blathers about things he doesn’t understand, never admits that he is not an expert, is loathe to admit mistakes, lies constantly and is barely intelligible.
Click to expand...
Because of all of that, it is readily apparent that Russia has been not-so-secretly influencing him to do their bidding. As Nancy Pelosi said, "All roads lead to Putin". Trump routinely repeats Russian propaganda (some of it verbatim), as routinely thwarts policies that Putin doesn't like and has on numerous occasions taken precipitous actions that have directly furthered Putin's interests - including allowing Russia to occupy former American bases in Syria. The serious question is: Is this a coincidence, or is he being manipulated into taking these actions? His behavior going back to 2013 is suspicious and indicates he has been influenced since at least then.
 
HumblePi said:
You're the one that should 'get over' this delusional world you've been living in. There is no crime as 'collusion'. You knew that, right? You knew that collusion is not a codified crime, right? Oh no, you obviously did not know that and you still won't believe that because you want to cling to that for one of your singular Fox talking points. Facts are facts, "collusion" is not a crime. I hope that's clear now and sinks in, it may take a while.

The Mueller investigation clearly proved that the Trump campaign, its advisors and the president himself coordinated with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Trump's campaign welcomed interference in OUR U.S. free election from an adversary, an enemy to the United States. Indeed, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and to prosecute federal crimes arising from that investigation. That's precisely what the special counsel did, they investigated individuals associated with the campaign and prosecuted those crimes. That's why Paul Manafort sits in prison, that's why Cohen sits in prison, that's why Popadopoulos spent time in prison, that's why Roger Stone was convicted on 5 counts and waits to see how long he'll spend in prison and his convictions are 100% connected to the Trump campaign. That's why Michael Flynn, a Trump administration appointee is waiting for his sentencing to find out how long he's going to spend in prison and why campaign co-char Rick Gates pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the FBI. It's why 13 Russian Nationals and 12 Russian Military Officers were indicted.

So when you erroneously claim "no collusion" you are dead wrong 100%. And by the way, the entire investigation could turn a profit for the government, thanks to Paul Manafort’s asset forfeiture. Manafort agreed to forfeit real estate and cash estimated to be worth between $42 million and $46 million.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just so there's no confusion, here are a few synonyms for 'collusion':

Collusion Synonyms, Collusion Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
 
OscarLevant said:
In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign.
Click to expand...

No matter how many time you keep repeating this, without actual, factual evidence, this remains a deliberate lie.
 
HumblePi said:

The Mueller investigation clearly proved that the Trump campaign, its advisors and the president himself coordinated with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Trump's campaign welcomed interference in OUR U.S. free election from an adversary, an enemy to the United States. Indeed, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and to prosecute federal crimes arising from that investigation. That's precisely what the special counsel did, they investigated individuals associated with the campaign and prosecuted those crimes. That's why Paul Manafort sits in prison, that's why Cohen sits in prison, that's why Popadopoulos spent time in prison, that's why Roger Stone was convicted on 5 counts and waits to see how long he'll spend in prison and his convictions are 100% connected to the Trump campaign. That's why Michael Flynn, a Trump administration appointee is waiting for his sentencing to find out how long he's going to spend in prison and why campaign co-char Rick Gates pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the FBI. It's why 13 Russian Nationals and 12 Russian Military Officers were indicted.

.
Click to expand...

WOW that would be a CONSPIRACY with a foreign power. something the Mueller report ALSO failed to find since it was about finding a conspiracy anyway... but you know that don't you?

if you have evidence of that you better let Mueller know.
 
Hypothetical said:
WOW that would be a CONSPIRACY with a foreign power. something the Mueller report ALSO failed to find since it was about finding a conspiracy anyway... but you know that don't you?

if you have evidence of that you better let Mueller know.
Click to expand...

False.

Mueller found several instances of obstruction and plenty of evidence of conspiracy.
 
Mycroft said:
No matter how many time you keep repeating this, without actual, factual evidence, this remains a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...

"Actual evidence" is found though investigations, but 98% of the materials and testimonies needed for Congress to do any investigation has been shut down by Trump. People have been convicted many times with nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many people have been convicted on the basis of perjured or inaccurate testimony. Strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Nobody is expecting Trump to tweet "I confess, I did it" so the process has to be constructed solely on circumstantial evidence and right now there's more than enough to charge Trump with articles of impeachment.

Ask yourself some logical questions;

Had Trump initiated a formal investigation by the FBI or CIA of the Biden's, Burisma or CrowdStrike in the past two and a half years?

Has Trump, or any one of his Republicans in Congress like Ted Cruz, Mark Meadows, Kevin McCarthy, Matt Gaetz, Lee Zeldin, or Jim Jordan so much as whisper the name 'Burisma' or 'CrowdStrike' or give any hint that perhaps Joe Biden did something wrong before this phone call in July with Zelensky?

Is there any valid reason why Donald Trump waited all through 2017, all through 2018 and seven months into 2019 to bring these concerns up with Ukraine?

Why didn't U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitchy know anything about CrowdStrike, the Biden's or Burisma? Maybe nobody told her?

The U.S. gave $200 million to Ukraine in 2018. Was any of that money ever delayed or was it ever mentioned "do us a favor though" ?

Did Joe Biden's polling numbers in July, which showed him leading, have anything to do with Trump's attempt to squeeze something out of Zelensky in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden?

Regarding the 2018 release of $200 million by the U.S.,check this out;

'US releases $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine as Moscow seeks better ties'

Washington (CNN)In a move likely to irk Moscow, the Pentagon has released $200 million in security assistance to Ukraine just days after the Russian Ministry of Defense said it was ready to work with the US Department of Defense on a range of security issues following a meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and amid concerns the US President had not been tough enough with his Russian counterpart at their meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

US releases $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine as Moscow seeks better ties - CNNPolitics
 
Hypothetical said:
WOW that would be a CONSPIRACY with a foreign power. something the Mueller report ALSO failed to find since it was about finding a conspiracy anyway... but you know that don't you?

if you have evidence of that you better let Mueller know.
Click to expand...

I don't have to let anyone know. Mueller let Congress know so they could proceed with investigations into Trump for collusion. Those conclusions by Robert Muellers are why Justin Amash left the GOP, remember?
 
ecofarm said:
False.

Mueller found several instances of obstruction and plenty of evidence of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

No they did not!

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
 
Common Sense 1 said:
No they did not!

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
Click to expand...

The report did not reach a conclusion.

And there is, nonetheless, a ton of evidence in the report.

English is hard.
 
OscarLevant said:
Our government historically horse trades in the foreign policy arena, it's common. The "quo" of the quid pro quo was a benefit to US Foreign Policy in the region, and that is why this practice is acceptable. In Biden's case, the threat to withold was not specific military aid, it was a threat to withold loan gaurantees if they didn't fire a corrupt prosecutor ( Shokin ).

In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

This is the false narrative put forth by the democrats, that Trump was trying to benefit his political campaign. That is not true, Trump knew of the corruption which was in Ukraine, saw the video of Biden and wanted to get to the bottom of this, to see if it was a conflict of interest or worse.

In Bidens case, it was to protect his son, Hunter. Using taxpayers dollars for personal reasons is truly corrupt. Isn't it odd how Hunter can land such a high paying job on a known corrupt company in Ukraine, and his father forces the prosecutor to be fired by leveraging tax dollars.


See above regarding Biden.

I'll give you the same answer I gave Ludin, who is promulgating the same line as you are:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...7283-traitors-among-us-13.html#post1071005090
Click to expand...


Far too much conjecture and speculation....none, zero witnesses have any firsthand knowledge of anything....albeit you will disagree.
 
HumblePi said:
"Actual evidence" is found though investigations, but 98% of the materials and testimonies needed for Congress to do any investigation has been shut down by Trump. People have been convicted many times with nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many people have been convicted on the basis of perjured or inaccurate testimony. Strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Nobody is expecting Trump to tweet "I confess, I did it" so the process has to be constructed solely on circumstantial evidence and right now there's more than enough to charge Trump with articles of impeachment.

Ask yourself some logical questions;

Had Trump initiated a formal investigation by the FBI or CIA of the Biden's, Burisma or CrowdStrike in the past two and a half years?

Has Trump, or any one of his Republicans in Congress like Ted Cruz, Mark Meadows, Kevin McCarthy, Matt Gaetz, Lee Zeldin, or Jim Jordan so much as whisper the name 'Burisma' or 'CrowdStrike' or give any hint that perhaps Joe Biden did something wrong before this phone call in July with Zelensky?

Is there any valid reason why Donald Trump waited all through 2017, all through 2018 and seven months into 2019 to bring these concerns up with Ukraine?

Why didn't U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitchy know anything about CrowdStrike, the Biden's or Burisma? Maybe nobody told her?

The U.S. gave $200 million to Ukraine in 2018. Was any of that money ever delayed or was it ever mentioned "do us a favor though" ?

Did Joe Biden's polling numbers in July, which showed him leading, have anything to do with Trump's attempt to squeeze something out of Zelensky in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden?

Regarding the 2018 release of $200 million by the U.S.,check this out;

'US releases $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine as Moscow seeks better ties'

Washington (CNN)In a move likely to irk Moscow, the Pentagon has released $200 million in security assistance to Ukraine just days after the Russian Ministry of Defense said it was ready to work with the US Department of Defense on a range of security issues following a meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and amid concerns the US President had not been tough enough with his Russian counterpart at their meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

US releases $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine as Moscow seeks better ties - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

You are throwing a lot of **** against the wall. Some of it is easily addressed. Almost all of it is irrelevant to the issue that I addressed in my comment.

But the only thing you've presented that applies to my post is this question:

Did Joe Biden's polling numbers in July, which showed him leading, have anything to do with Trump's attempt to squeeze something out of Zelensky in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden?
Click to expand...

Please provide some actual, factual evidence that indicates that the answer to that question is yes. If you cannot do that, then any statement similar to OscarLevant's statement, "In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign.", is a deliberate lie.

You also made this statement:

"Actual evidence" is found though investigations, but 98% of the materials and testimonies needed for Congress to do any investigation has been shut down by Trump.
Click to expand...

Besides the very questionable and unsupported number of "98%", there are court cases in progress that can deal with this. Perhaps the House Dems should wait with their impeachment proceedings until these court cases are resolved...instead of making unsupported contentions and then complaining that they can't find the support because Trump is shutting them down. You can't have it both ways and still call yourself honest.
 
Mycroft said:
You are throwing a lot of **** against the wall. Some of it is easily addressed. Almost all of it is irrelevant to the issue that I addressed in my comment.

But the only thing you've presented that applies to my post is this question:



Please provide some actual, factual evidence that indicates that the answer to that question is yes. If you cannot do that, then any statement similar to OscarLevant's statement, "In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign.", is a deliberate lie.

You also made this statement:



Besides the very questionable and unsupported number of "98%", there are court cases in progress that can deal with this. Perhaps the House Dems should wait with their impeachment proceedings until these court cases are resolved...instead of making unsupported contentions and then complaining that they can't find the support because Trump is shutting them down. You can't have it both ways and still call yourself honest.
Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks to your non-answers. :yawn:
 
OscarLevant said:
But, Ukraine has a lot of corruptions issues. So, of all the issues of corruption involving Ukraine he cherry picks the ONLY one which, if he gets Zelenski, not just to actually investigate Biden, if he gets Zelenski just to announce that they are investigating Biden, that would put a taint on Biden, and thus help Trump politically. Remember, that was the primary objective, more than the investigation, it was the announcement first AND then the actual investigation Trump was after.
Click to expand...

deflection. I said show me where in the constitution the president does not have the power to investigate corruption or crimes by a US citizen?
Also show me where in the constitution it says that because you run for president you are immune from investigation on possible crimes?

The ONLY reason Trump,. therefore, was to benefit himself politically. When asked about it on TV Trump said not only should Ukraine investigate Biden, so should China.
Click to expand...

Show me the evidence. no one else has any evidence of that this occurred. Not tayor, not volker, not morrison, not sondland not zelensky.

The only thing concerning Trump is not corruption, per se, but the investigation of Biden. Why? Because Biden, as polls show, put him as his biggest most likely opposition.
Click to expand...

again you are speculating with 0 evidence to support your accusation either.
If it were merely corruption Trump was after, he wouldn't be cherry picking it. MOreover, the aid was given the go signal, the intel staff had certified that Ukraine was serious about doing something regarding it's corruption with the new president, and there was NO reason for Trump to withhold aid, Ukraine had already been cleared for the aid, corruption-wise.
Click to expand...

The aid was given without the investigation. actually there was. your opinion that there wasn't is simply your opinion.

And so, the solicitation is an emoluments violation, the conditioning of it to perform those two acts in order to receive the aid makes it Bribery.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't as there was no solicitation there is no evidence of solicitation.

Vindman was a direct witness to the fact that Trump was soliticiting Zelenski. Not only that, Trump announced in on TV, it was all Trump seemed to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

Morrison was a direct witness as well and he says that there wasn't. also vindman has no evidence of any wrong doing either.
he simply has his opinion. opinion is not fact. both morrison and zelensky countner vindmans claim of quid pro quo.

Trump announced "no quid pro quo" immediately after the WB report. Why did he do that? Consciousness of guilt, that's why. To counter the narrative that the facts portrayed.
Click to expand...

Nope not at all. again you are speculating without having evidence to support it.

Bolton didn't tell Yovanovich 'Tell the lawyers' becuase Guiliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Trump, etc., were playing checkers.
Click to expand...

yovanovich was fired before the whole thing began and she has no evidence of wrong doing as she testified in court.

Nine foreign service officers are smart enough to figure out what the scheme they were trying to hatch was, they were all in agreement on this point, and they wouldn't jeopardize what is their life's work, the Foreign service, by lying under oath, many things about what was going on led them to understand what was going on.
Click to expand...

9 foreign service officers testified that they had no evidence of quid pro quo.

And why don't all of those guys testify, why are they defying a subpoena?
Click to expand...

See executive privilege.
also because courts have ruled that congress is not a law enforcement agency and their subpoena's only go so far.

Because, in order to help Trump, they would have to lie under oath, and they know that they can defy a subpoena, and get away with it, a fate much easier than lying under oath, which could put anyone of them in the slammer.
Click to expand...

Prove they would have to lie.
I don't give a **** what ****ty schiff says.

That is Obstruction of Congress, Contempt Of Congress, and Abuse of power
Click to expand...

No it isn't. it is a president exerting his authority that he has authority and the court rulings to back it up.
If the congress things their subpoena's are valid then they fight it in court.
why are they not fighting them in court? because they know that they would get thrown out.

There are at least 4 open and shut cases of Obstruction of Justice, in the Mueller report, which also adds up to Abuse of Power.
Click to expand...
No there isn't trump was cleared of any obstruction charges by the DOj.
you know muellers boss who makes the decisions on the charges based on evidence.

You see obstruction has an intent clause written into it.
 
Mycroft said:
You are throwing a lot of **** against the wall. Some of it is easily addressed. Almost all of it is irrelevant to the issue that I addressed in my comment.

But the only thing you've presented that applies to my post is this question:
Click to expand...

that is all they will ever do.

Please provide some actual, factual evidence that indicates that the answer to that question is yes. If you cannot do that, then any statement similar to OscarLevant's statement, "In Trump's case it was to benefit his political campaign.", is a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...

They will never do this because they can't. it would mean they have to admit they are wrong. leftist think it therefore it is so.
regardless if the facts support what they say.

Besides the very questionable and unsupported number of "98%", there are court cases in progress that can deal with this. Perhaps the House Dems should wait with their impeachment proceedings until these court cases are resolved...instead of making unsupported contentions and then complaining that they can't find the support because Trump is shutting them down. You can't have it both ways and still call yourself honest.
Click to expand...

you have to understand that this was never about impeachment. this is 100% about the 2020 election.
they knew that they didn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election with the clods they have up there right now.

this is nothing more than a wag the dog campaign to try and ruin trumps 2020 chances.
the problem is they have nothing.

the big buckets of fail they keep coming up with isn't helping them with voters.
all it does is make them look petty and childish.
 
ludin said:
deflection. I said show me where in the constitution the president does not have the power to investigate corruption or crimes by a US citizen?
Also show me where in the constitution it says that because you run for president you are immune from investigation on possible crimes?
Click to expand...

No one stated that "running for president makes you immune". However, there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, NONE.

I was not "deflecting" but providing you with context that makes it clear Trump's motivation are not "investigating corruption", but asking a favor of a foreign entity to help Trump investigate his most salient political opponent.


The proper context to prove the above point is that Trump is not concerned with corruption given that he has a long history of corrupt and shady activity in his own past.

This is the guy who fornicated and cheated on his with a porn star just after his newly wed wife gave birth, and later paid $130,000 to hush it up so that the American people would not find out about it in order to better his reelection chances, where his long time attorney who handled the hush money was incarcerated and Trump was named co-conspirator in that felony.

I could list many Trump transgressions, all of which paint an inescapable picture of a man who is corrupt himself, and as such, it does not follow that such a man would be concerned about any other nation's corruption, but it does follow that his own intent with regard to asking Zelensky to investigating Biden, and holding back military aid, aid which Ukraine desperately needs, is corrupt.

Trump abused his power and that is impeachable. Bribery, emoluments, are both listed in the constitution. Essay 65 of the federalist papers by Hamilton make it clear Congress is the sole arbiter of impeachment, and there is no other body vested with that power but Congress, by the constitution.
 
ludin said:
The only traitors are those that seek a coup of government and overthrow of a legal election and that of a duly elected president.

Thanks for the projection fallacy but that is what we expect.

The writer of the article is an idiot as well as any one that reads or believes it.

Treason has a very specific meaning just like everything else.

The only reason it has lost it's meaning is that leftist throw without there every 2 seconds.
As usual the leftist of this country proving themselves to be complete and utter morons.
Click to expand...

Given an entire major political party and its fellow travelers have gone over to the Russian enemies of the United States, a massive national reconstruction will be needed once Trump is gone whether Trump vacates the office voluntarily or is vacated from it involuntarily. While it will be done Constitutionally, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy as occurred with the original reconstruction that ended up being derailed by its defeated enemy and other opponents.
 
Tangmo said:
Given an entire major political party and its fellow travelers have gone over to the Russian enemies of the United States, a massive national reconstruction will be needed once Trump is gone whether Trump vacates the office voluntarily or is vacated from it involuntarily. While it will be done Constitutionally, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy as occurred with the original reconstruction that ended up being derailed by its defeated enemy and other opponents.
Click to expand...

After my mother died, my oldest brother was given her house. He decided to rent it. The renters didn't make payments and eventually he had to have them evicted. It took years, and cost thousands of dollars he didn't have, while he was not getting any payments. When they left, they had cut out most of the copper piping and wiring, doing over $27,000 in damage. I felt then like I do now. It will take years to recover from the damage, if it can even happen, and the scars and pain will be everlasting.
 
NWRatCon said:
After my mother died, my oldest brother was given her house. He decided to rent it. The renters didn't make payments and eventually he had to have them evicted. It took years, and cost thousands of dollars he didn't have, while he was not getting any payments. When they left, they had cut out most of the copper piping and wiring, doing over $27,000 in damage. I felt then like I do now. It will take years to recover from the damage, if it can even happen, and the scars and pain will be everlasting.
Click to expand...

The first and failed postbellum reconstruction was a kind and gentle affair which is a major reason it fell prey to the malevolence of those who defeated it and who were in fact its focus and raison d'etre. The defeated were allowed to defeat their intended reformation by means of a polite and forgiving reconstruction as envisaged by Lincoln who preached malice toward none.

While malice is unnecessary and unproductive toward any undertaking to reform an entire society, the trauma of a serious and determined second national reconstruction is unavoidable. Yet the newly reformed society will be rewarded eternally for their secular good works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom