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

[MauiMan]

I also recall that Clinton lied under oath thus committing perjury which is a violation of the law and that is a crime

But, what do you have to say about the facts that MovingPictures posted?

 

[Conservative]

I'm a former Democrat who pulled my head out of my ass.


As far as Clinton, he was anti immigration and pro welfare reform. If he was president today, he'd be considered a Stephen Miller Republican. His big downfall to me were his pro China stance and NAFTA agreement. I could care less that he diddled some half ass intern. I was in the military when he was President and fully supported him.


With Carter I was too young to know any difference.

I am a former democrat, a JFK Democrat who believed in the private sector and probably have voted for more Democrats than most here have voted Republican. The Democratic Party has been radicalized and is doing everything in its power to create that massive welfare liberal utopia that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. These multi millionaire Democratic Candidates have no credibility and no understanding of even basic civics or economics. This country was founded on Christian principles and free enterprise and capitalism. Putin wanted to disrupt the election process and these radicals are giving him is desire

 

[Conservative]

But, what do you have to say about the facts that MovingPictures posted?

I see no facts, the time line is irrelevant, where is the violation of law? Sondland? NO! Turley stated it best, there is no credible evidence supporting the Democratic initiatives to impeach a President, this is purely political.

 

[Grim17]

Do you have a document, a recording, or testimony from anyone that firmly establishes that Trump made demands of the Ukrainians, and refused to release the aid until those demand were met?

We have a transcript where Trump directly demands investigations of his political rivals. Is that acceptable to you when it's an enemy of the GOP?

Since you didn't answer the question, the answer is obviously "No"... There is no direct evidence supporting the quid pro quo/Ukrainian aid accusation, which is exactly the reason taking this thing to the senate is foolish.

A few other things I'd like to point out... You seem to think that asking a "favor" is the same thing as making a "demand", but they're actually 2 different things. So according to the transcripts, what did Trump say to Zelenski?

As for Trump asking for an investigation, there was, and still is, plenty of probable cause suggesting political corruption and/or criminal activity by Joe Biden took place when he was VP. The evidence came out of his own mouth. Are you suggesting that because he's running for office, that gives Biden criminal immunity and therefore can't be investigated?

I understand there's a political conflict with Trump calling for an investigation, but there's ample justification for Biden being investigated. The evidence indicates that Biden may have engaged in large scale political corruption and possibly abused his power to financially benefit his family, and since he's running for office I think it's important we learn the truth before the election, not after... I'm sure you see things quite different though.

 

[MauiMan]

I see no facts, the time line is irrelevant, where is the violation of law? Sondland? NO! Turley stated it best, there is no credible evidence supporting the Democratic initiatives to impeach a President, this is purely political.

I agree—you see no facts. It is not purely political—but has been made so by the Republicans. All they talk about is process—loudly and with great indignation! But, what is their counter-argument? Where are your facts? Prove your Hunter Biden conspiracy, or take off your tin-foil hat!

 

[exoplanet]

Since you didn't answer the question, the answer is obviously "No"... There is no direct evidence supporting the quid pro quo/Ukrainian aid accusation, which is exactly the reason taking this thing to the senate is foolish.

A few other things I'd like to point out... You seem to think that asking a "favor" is the same thing as making a "demand", but they're actually 2 different things. So according to the transcripts, what did Trump say to Zelenski?

"Favor" or "demand", it doesn't matter. What's material is whether the aid is attached to the behavior.

With the evidence presented, I don't know that I would "convict" the President by normal legal standards, however, normal citizens would've been forced to cooperate with the investigators and would not have the power to forbid relevant witnesses from testifying against them. Given the unusual power of the POTUS to protect himself from investigation and that the Trump has failed to cooperate with Congress means that the normal legal standards we apply to regular citizens aren't applicable. In fact, obstruction of Congress can be considered an impeachable offense in and of itself (similar charges were brought against Nixon).

As for Trump asking for an investigation, there was, and still is, plenty of probable cause suggesting political corruption and/or criminal activity by Joe Biden took place when he was VP. The evidence came out of his own mouth. Are you suggesting that because he's running for office, that gives Biden criminal immunity and therefore can't be investigated?

I understand there's a political conflict with Trump calling for an investigation, but there's ample justification for Biden being investigated. The evidence indicates that Biden may have engaged in large scale political corruption and possibly abused his power to financially benefit his family, and since he's running for office I think it's important we learn the truth before the election, not after... I'm sure you see things quite different though.

If this is true, then there are legitimate channels for investigating American citizens. Yet, there is no such investigation in the US... hmm... wonder why that is? Having the Ukrainian government announce an investigation is a pure political move.

 

[Grim17]

1. The fact that NO other explanation has been offered.
2. The fact that the WH pushed like crazy for the investigations, following the hold on the aid.
3. The fact that diplomats and the Ukrainians who asked if the two things were connected, were never told different.
4. The fact that Trump released the aid the day after the House began asking questions about the hold.
5. The fact that Trump tried to withhold the WB report, until elements of its contents leaked out.
6. The fact that Trump saw the WB report before us and his reaction was to release the aid the next day.
7. The fact that Mulvaney conceded at least the Crowdstrike/DNC investigation WAS tied to the aid.
8. The fact that Sondland and Volker drafted statements for the Ukrainians to make announcing the investigations, while the aid hold was present.
9. The fact that no other person has the power to place such a hold besides Trump.

Yeah, really thin evidence. :lamo

Yes, it's extremely thin because it is all based purely on conjecture. Democrats need to come up with real, tangible evidence showing there was a QPQ tied to the aid being withheld by Trump. Every single thing you listed as evidence of a QPQ, was based on presumption and speculation without any tangible, supporting evidence to back them up with. Not having an answer to a question, doesn't mean you can assume any one you like.

 

[MauiMan]

ROTFLOL... Democrats and their Goebbels Media continue with their Trump Retardation Syndrome idiocy.

November 8, 2016 obviously stung really, really bad.

View attachment 67269359

Isn’t it wonderful?!

 

[Nalu]

I'm not on team Democrat either. The American political landscape as a whole is too far right for me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been posting a lot about that recently too. Placed on the complete political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans aren't very different. You wouldn't know that by talking to them though. You'd swear the entire effing world was going to implode if the other side won an election. All carefully planned, coordinated, and executed manipulation of the public to keep people in power in power.

 

[Conservative]

I agree—you see no facts. It is not purely political—but has been made so by the Republicans. All they talk about is process—loudly and with great indignation! But, what is their counter-argument? Where are your facts? Prove your Hunter Biden conspiracy, or take off your tin-foil hat!

You want to make this about Hunter Biden, he isn't running for anything, this is about Ukraine Corruption and national security. Sondland's testimony buries the Democrats

 

[MauiMan]

You want to make this about Hunter Biden, he isn't running for anything, this is about Ukraine Corruption and national security. Sondland's testimony buries the Democrats

You are right. This is about our democracy, and we all should take it seriously.

I find your statement "Sondland's testimony buries the Democrats" to be strange. This is not about factions. It is about accountability in the White House. We need to hear from ALL the witnesses—especially the ones the White House has blocked.

 

[Conservative]

You are right. This is about our democracy, and we all should take it seriously.

I find your statement "Sondland's testimony buries the Democrats" to be strange. This is not about factions. It is about accountability in the White House. We need to hear from ALL the witnesses—especially the ones the White House has blocked.

So tell me how Ukraine and this issue affects our Democracy? Witnesses? you mean the whistleblower? Where is that person? this isn't a trial and if it is the left isn't going to like the outcome. why should the WH support this investigation without the Whistleblower first?

 

[MauiMan]

So tell me how Ukraine and this issue affects our Democracy? Witnesses? you mean the whistleblower? Where is that person? this isn't a trial and if it is the left isn't going to like the outcome. why should the WH support this investigation without the Whistleblower first?

You are busy worrying about who blew the whistle rather than why it was blown. Go ahead and call the whistleblower—it doesn’t matter. It is clear what the President was attempting to do. If he wasn’t, why is he blocking all requests for information and blocking all testimony that he can? It makes him look very guilty, don’t you think? You are focusing on process rather than substance. This is not a court of law. The President won’t be put in jail—he will simply be fired.

 

[sjmay]

I agree—you see no facts. It is not purely political—but has been made so by the Republicans. All they talk about is process—loudly and with great indignation! But, what is their counter-argument? Where are your facts? Prove your Hunter Biden conspiracy, or take off your tin-foil hat!

How do you propose that gets proven without an investigation??

 

[MauiMan]

How do you propose that gets proven without an investigation??

Who is stopping an investigation? Do you realize the entire Executive Branch works for the President? The FBI, CIA, and all the other alphabet soup of agencies? But, no, he can’t do it that way. He has to attempt to bribe a foreign leader. Why?

 

[TheRepublican]

I can be more fixable after my reelection that wasn’t a impeachment case but oh my god we’re acting like kids on a long recess because the president touched a corrupt case that the incoming president of Ukraine offered! If you have any other transcript of this call then produce a copy right now! If you don’t then this is a low blow and you know the democrats would be crying if this is turned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Oborosen]

???

...

So is this what I can look forward to seeing now when I ask a legitimate question?

What case does she have???

 

[Athanasius68]

Who is stopping an investigation? Do you realize the entire Executive Branch works for the President? The FBI, CIA, and all the other alphabet soup of agencies? But, no, he can’t do it that way. He has to attempt to bribe a foreign leader. Why?

How did he do that?
He told Zelensky that he would have Barr coordinate.

 

[MauiMan]

How did he do that?
He told Zelensky that he would have Barr coordinate.

Ok, well, where’s the investigation? Where’s the proof of the Biden corruption?

 

[Conservative]

You are busy worrying about who blew the whistle rather than why it was blown. Go ahead and call the whistleblower—it doesn’t matter. It is clear what the President was attempting to do. If he wasn’t, why is he blocking all requests for information and blocking all testimony that he can? It makes him look very guilty, don’t you think? You are focusing on process rather than substance. This is not a court of law. The President won’t be put in jail—he will simply be fired.

Interesting how you and others continue to ignore the fact that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to face their accuser. Who brought the charges up against Trump? It is clear that after what three weeks of testimony that there still is no compelling evidence to warrant impeachment of this President. I don't see an answer to my questions just like I don't see anything but hearsay, assumptions, opinions none of which rise to what would be considered compelling evidence.

And by the way this isn't a trial and he won't be fired so why are the Democrats doing this? The outcome is going to be just like the Clinton outcome and Trump is going to be re-elected

 

[Athanasius68]

Ok, well, where’s the investigation? Where’s the proof of the Biden corruption?

There was no investigation.
Its Ukraine. USA can't investigate there.

 

[MauiMan]

Interesting how you and others continue to ignore the fact that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to face their accuser. Who brought the charges up against Trump? It is clear that after what three weeks of testimony that there still is no compelling evidence to warrant impeachment of this President. I don't see an answer to my questions just like I don't see anything but hearsay, assumptions, opinions none of which rise to what would be considered compelling evidence.

And by the way this isn't a trial and he won't be fired so why are the Democrats doing this? The outcome is going to be just like the Clinton outcome and Trump is going to be re-elected

The only one not following the law with this process is Trump—by not abiding by Congressional Subpoenas and failure to provide information that was requested/demanded by Congress. Democrats are doing this because it is their constitutional duty. Republicans are not going along with it because they are afraid of the President and the damage he would do to any defectors.

There is plenty of compelling evidence. You have seen the testimony. There would be more evidence, but the President has stonewalled—just like Nixon did. If he is so innocent, then why won’t he provide the exculpatory evidence that he has? Hmm?

The historic trial in the Senate will be fascinating. Maybe you and your ilk will get the “due process” that you go on and on about—ad nauseam. So far, the only thing we hear from the right is voluminous apoplectic blather! No exculpatory evidence—just debunked conspiracy theories.

 

[MauiMan]

There was no investigation.
Its Ukraine. USA can't investigate there.

Baloney. The FBI conducts foreign investigations all the time.

 

[Conservative]

The only one not following the law with this process is Trump—by not abiding by Congressional Subpoenas and failure to provide information that was requested/demanded by Congress. Democrats are doing this because it is their constitutional duty. Republicans are not going along with it because they are afraid of the President and the damage he would do to any defectors.

There is plenty of compelling evidence. You have seen the testimony. There would be more evidence, but the President has stonewalled—just like Nixon did. If he is so innocent, then why won’t he provide the exculpatory evidence that he has? Hmm?

The historic trial in the Senate will be fascinating. Maybe you and your ilk will get the “due process” that you go on and on about—ad nauseam. So far, the only thing we hear from the right is voluminous apoplectic blather! No exculpatory evidence—just debunked conspiracy theories.

So a subpoena from the House to an equal branch of the gov't requires the Executive branch of the gov't to comply? LOL, amazing how civics challenged many people are

The historic trial in the Senate will indeed be fascinating if it even gets there. The Democrats are going to have to answer questions and it is't going to be pretty but it will be fascinating to watch. Your support for the left is appreciated by the leadership of the left but doesn't do much for your credibility.

You believe there is compelling evidence? where is it? You want me to post again Sondland's testimony to Schiff?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Interesting how you and others continue to ignore the fact that in this country one is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to face their accuser. Who brought the charges up against Trump? It is clear that after what three weeks of testimony that there still is no compelling evidence to warrant impeachment of this President. I don't see an answer to my questions just like I don't see anything but hearsay, assumptions, opinions none of which rise to what would be considered compelling evidence.

And by the way this isn't a trial and he won't be fired so why are the Democrats doing this? The outcome is going to be just like the Clinton outcome and Trump is going to be re-elected

You would think if the democrats are to save face, they would make the accuser testify.

Unless they made it all up.