is it only impeachable when trump does it? because in a little reported story, three democrat us senators asked ukraine to investigate trump. hmmm.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/double-standard-senate-democrats-asked-ukraine-to-help-them-investigate-trump?%3Futm_source=twitter

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RSOUOj8H9A3Xq/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a1b8718aeb7a513a828be8670605b 0ffd854b1138&rid=giphy.gif

is it only impeachable when trump does it? because in a little reported story, three democrat us senators asked ukraine to investigate trump. hmmm.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/double-standard-senate-democrats-asked-ukraine-to-help-them-investigate-trump?%3Futm_source=twitter

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RSOUOj8H9A3Xq/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a1b8718aeb7a513a828be8670605b 0ffd854b1138&rid=giphy.gif
Dig deeper Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dig deeper Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2hxywnF3Mw

Senator Sasse (R-NE) after reading the whistleblower complaint: "...Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there’s no there there when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling there..."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s a hint
Nobody protects a bully
As soon as the Republican Senators think their chances are better with Trump gone, he is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, read my original post, and comment on it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, read my original post, and comment on it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What do the Simpsons have to do with Trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is it only impeachable when trump does it? because in a little reported story, three democrat us senators asked ukraine to investigate trump. hmmm.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/double-standard-senate-democrats-asked-ukraine-to-help-them-investigate-trump?%3Futm_source=twitter

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RSOUOj8H9A3Xq/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a1b8718aeb7a513a828be8670605b 0ffd854b1138&rid=giphy.gif
From the WAPO article that the Daily Wire cites
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that Congress will initiate a formal impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine episode, a move Joe Biden endorsed in a speech, declaring, “It’s time for the Congress to fully investigate the conduct of this president.” Such an investigation will be far more damaging for Biden than the president. It will keep the story of Biden’s conflict of interest in the news through the 2020 election. Millions of Americans will learn the word “Burisma.” Senate Republicans can demand that Hunter Biden testify, and subpoena Obama White House aides such as Hochstein to explain under oath what the vice president knew and when he knew it.
Sounds like Biden isn’t scared.

Trump put his priorities in front of the countries and violated the oath of office he took.
Forget the whatabouts, no one else is President.
Watch the presser and look at Zelensky’s face when Trump #^&#^&#^&#^&s him. Do you think the rest of the world didn’t see that for what it was? Or are you that blind to what Putin’s Puppet is doing?
“I really hope that Russia—because I really believe that President Putin would like to do something—I really hope that you and President Putin can get together and solve your problem,” Trump said at the United Nations on Wednesday, as Zelensky sat stone-faced. “That would be a tremendous achievement, and I know that you’re trying to do that.”
“You’ve really made some progress with Russia,” Trump added, telling Zelensky that “it’d be nice to end that whole disaster.”

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is impeachable to ask a foreign government to interfere in an election. Which is what happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From the WAPO article that the Daily Wire cites
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that Congress will initiate a formal impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine episode, a move Joe Biden endorsed in a speech, declaring, “It’s time for the Congress to fully investigate the conduct of this president.” Such an investigation will be far more damaging for Biden than the president. It will keep the story of Biden’s conflict of interest in the news through the 2020 election. Millions of Americans will learn the word “Burisma.” Senate Republicans can demand that Hunter Biden testify, and subpoena Obama White House aides such as Hochstein to explain under oath what the vice president knew and when he knew it.
Sounds like Biden isn’t scared.

Trump put his priorities in front of the countries and violated the oath of office he took.
Forget the whatabouts, no one else is President.
Watch the presser and look at Zelensky’s face when Trump #^&#^&#^&#^&s him. Do you think the rest of the world didn’t see that for what it was? Or are you that blind to what Putin’s Puppet is doing?
“I really hope that Russia—because I really believe that President Putin would like to do something—I really hope that you and President Putin can get together and solve your problem,” Trump said at the United Nations on Wednesday, as Zelensky sat stone-faced. “That would be a tremendous achievement, and I know that you’re trying to do that.”
“You’ve really made some progress with Russia,” Trump added, telling Zelensky that “it’d be nice to end that whole disaster.”

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the third time, why is it wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate his adversaries, but not for democrats in teh US Senate? Can't find a 10,000 word piece written by someone else to explain the naked double standrad there?

It is impeachable to ask a foreign government to interfere in an election. Which is what happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much of what they do, Nebe, is to help themselves politically.

When Obama told the Russian official who wanted to work on missile dfeense, to wait until after the election because Obama was afraid that what he planned to do would hurt hos chances at re-election, that's different? Obama asked a Russian official wo hold off on working on a project together, to help influence Obama's next election. After that election, Obama told the guy he'd have mre flexibility. That was OK.

Buuutobaaama

Please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buuutobaaama

Please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Jim is pointing out is called precedent. Or, in more common lingo, what goes around comes around.

it’s coming round all right.

The clown car is coming round the bend and pence can’t wait to take the wheel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s coming round all right.

The clown car is coming round the bend and pence can’t wait to take the wheel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Deep

Buuutobaaama

Please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please explain he difference between what obama
did, and what trump did.

in both cases, the president asked a foreign government for a policy favor which would
benefit him politically.

the difference i see, is that obama did it more blatantly, as he explicitly mentioned the consequences to his upcoming election.

take out your obama tampon, and tell me why what trump did is impeachable, but not what obama
did?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s coming round all right.

The clown car is coming round the bend and pence can’t wait to take the wheel.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many times have you said this since 2017?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Telling someone you don’t want to discuss a possible policy till after you are elected is the same as telling someone who you are withholding aid from to “do me a favor” and look into Biden etc. We will have a great relationship yada yada

The difference is the latter is indictable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many times have you said this since 2017?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he's a great predicterator

Telling someone you don’t want to discuss a possible policy till after you are elected is the same as telling someone who you are withholding aid from to “do me a favor” and look into Biden etc. We will have a great relationship yada yada

The difference is the latter is indictable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

both men asked foreign governments to take policy action which would benefit them politically. is that true or false?

when george w bush got a coalition of nations to help us in Iraq, that helped him politically. should he have been impeached because he asked foreign governments do something, which had the benefit of helping him politically?

for every talking head who says it’s impeachable, there’s someone who says it isn’t. it’s not anything close to objective or factual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Jim is pointing out is called precedent. Or, in more common lingo, what goes around comes around.

What Mr. Our Fore Fathers intentions need to be preserved thinks we can now bend their rules, say it isn’t so🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Mr. Our Fore Fathers intentions need to be preserved thinks we can now bend their rules, say it isn’t so🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obama asked the russians to help him politically. democrats senators asked the ukraine to investigate trump. did those bother you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Telling someone you don’t want to discuss a possible policy till after you are elected is the same as telling someone who you are withholding aid from to “do me a favor” and look into Biden etc. We will have a great relationship yada yada

The difference is the latter is indictable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




Highlighted: The reason that is highlighted is due to how fast CNN twisting facts goes viral.

CNN on video uses the first part of the quote where Trump asks "to do a favor" and then CNN states that Trump is asking Zelensky to look into Biden. But the Transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to look into Crowdstrike (which has its own issues) and the DNC server from 2016.

Hearing exurbs from the whistle blower complaint is really damning, you better circle those red wagons closer, this is going to be fun watching Trump and Rudy implode. I have no doubt the witch hunt and presidential harassment lines will be flying on the steps of the White House and in this board.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-whistleblower-complaint-regarding-president-trump-s-communications-with-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky/4b9e0ca5-3824-467f-b1a3-77f2d4ee16aa/

BLISTERING

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-whistleblower-complaint-regarding-president-trump-s-communications-with-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky/4b9e0ca5-3824-467f-b1a3-77f2d4ee16aa/

BLISTERING

which you’ve said how many times before, which turned out to be zip?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This raised my eyebrows. I copied this from a wall street journal article from this morning. -


The whistleblower complaint alleges that there was an effort within the White House in the days following the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky to “lock down” all records related to it, “especially the word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced” by the White House Situation Room. White House officials told the complainant they had been “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system that stores those transcripts and allows for distribution to Cabinet-level officials, the report staid.
“This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call,” the complaint said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Highlighted: The reason that is highlighted is due to how fast CNN twisting facts goes viral.

CNN on video uses the first part of the quote where Trump asks "to do a favor" and then CNN states that Trump is asking Zelensky to look into Biden. But the Transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to look into Crowdstrike (which has its own issues) and the DNC server from 2016.

John, I edited that to make it shorter, likely CNN did the same.

There is no "smoking gun" here, nor does there need to be.

There are three main issues that stand out regarding the Memo and Trump's behavior

1. The question of a possible quid pro quo.

Days before the call, Trump ordered his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to freeze a substantial package of military aid to Ukraine—a move that reportedly baffled and concerned officials in both the State and Defense Departments. Now consider how Trump sets the stage for his conversation with Zelensky by framing the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship in terms of reciprocity, suggesting that “the United States has been very good to Ukraine” but Ukraine may not have adequately reciprocated.

Thus when Zelensky comes in with his ask—for the president’s support for Ukrainian efforts to acquire defensive equipment from the United States—Trump is ready. He immediately pivots to an ask of his own, telling Zelensky that “I would like you to do us a favor though[.]”

But the favor in question is not a policy favor for the United States. It’s a political favor for Trump. This is where Trump raises the issue of Crowdstrike, asking Zelensky to “find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.” Recall that the conspiracy theory regarding Crowdstrike involves casting doubt on whether Russia really hacked the DNC and, thus, on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election at all. Trump appears to be asking for Zelensky’s help in amplifying this theory—which supports Trump’s understanding of the Mueller probe as a “Witch Hunt”—and finding evidence to support it. His request for a “favor”—immediately after Zelensky references a prospective purchase—is easily understood as the president’s connecting the U.S.’s provision of defensive equipment to Zelinsky’s willingness to assist Barr on a matter of personal concern to the president.

2. The clear evidence that the president solicited the Ukrainian president to deliver dirt on U.S. persons in a gross abuse of their civil liberties.

3. A clear attempt at soliciting foreign government intervention in a U.S. presidential campaign.

When Zelensky responds positively, stating that “all the investigations will be done openly and candidly,” Trump digs in further with another request: “[W]hatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” he says, pushing Zelensky to commit to investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. He requests repeatedly that Zelensky speak to Giuliani, who at this time was publicly calling for the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

To really understand the issues, a look at the timeline and the actors involved is needed. Lawfare did a timeline that looks to be complete.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/timeline-trump-ukraine-scandal

so doing an investigation when there’s obvious evidence of Biden nepotism, is nothing more than getting dirt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which you’ve said how many times before, which turned out to be zip?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not zip

Rep. Will Hurd
@HurdOnTheHill
There is a lot in the whistleblower complaint that is concerning. We need to fully investigate all of the allegations addressed in the letter, and the first step is to talk to the whistleblower.
9:18 AM · Sep 26, 2019

so doing an investigation when there’s obvious evidence of Biden nepotism, is nothing more than getting dirt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There is no obvious evidence, in fact there is no evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if you are watching Maguire's testimony, the security agent behind Maguire comes from the CIA’s protection division.

Fun fact: They have unique, limited federal authority—cannot arrest you, but can kill you.

Not zip

Rep. Will Hurd
@HurdOnTheHill
There is a lot in the whistleblower complaint that is concerning. We need to fully investigate all of the allegations addressed in the letter, and the first step is to talk to the whistleblower.
9:18 AM · Sep 26, 2019

i agree it’s concerning. the remedy is the next election, not undoing the last one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no obvious evidence, in fact there is no evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not when you refuse to look at it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree it’s concerning. the remedy is the next election, not undoing the last one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The idea that we should "let the voters decide" on Trump in 2020 is nonsense.

The public doesn't vote on whether people have committed crimes against the nation.

Though this presidency does look like a reality show it isn't an episode of "America's Got Treason".

Peto’s post are a crime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess I’m confused, don’t people rush to cover up something when they realize criminal behavior had taken place? Allowing criminal behavior to get a pass, suggesting we should let the 2020 election resolve it sets a very dangerous standard of conduct we will allow our elected officials to behave in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no obvious evidence, in fact there is no evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's pretty obvious...

I guess I’m confused

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

also obvious

And if you are watching Maguire's testimony, the security agent behind Maguire comes from the CIA’s protection division.

Fun fact: They have unique, limited federal authority—cannot arrest you, but can kill you.

Isn't Maguire the guy you falsely said threatened to quit? After he gets slandered by you and Schiff and the Dems, he may well need protection.

Biden Inc...


Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s brother used the former vice president’s cancer initiative to drum up investment in his business, Politico reported Thursday.

In November 2018, James Biden told executives at Florida-based company Integrate Oral Care that the Biden Cancer Initiative would promote an oral rinse used by cancer patients and produced by Integrate, according to Michael Frey, the CEO of Diverse Medical Management, a health care firm that is currently suing James Biden.

Frey said that James Biden “said his brother would be very excited about this product.”

David Fuscus, a spokesman for James Biden, denied Frey’s allegations. “These charges stem from a frivolous lawsuit and are pure fantasy,” said Fuscus, continuing, “We are not surprised that such baseless accusations have emerged during the Democratic primaries.”

This is not the first accusation that members of Joe Biden’s family have been accused of using their connections to the former vice president to promote their business interests.

In August 2019 it was reported that both Diverse Medical Management and Azzam Medical Services had sued James Biden, alleging the former vice president’s younger brother had offered to partner with them in a scheme designed to steal the companies’ business models and intellectual property.

It is impeachable to ask a foreign government to interfere in an election. Which is what happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, if China agreed with a Trump trade deal that actually stopped its stealing of secrets and balanced trade with the US (which would greatly enhance Trump's chances of winning the next election), would he have asked China to interfere with the election?

So, if China agreed with a Trump trade deal that actually stopped its stealing of secrets and balanced trade with the US (which would greatly enhance Trump's chances of winning the next election), would he have asked China to interfere with the election?

exactly. using their logic, that would be an impeachable offense. i guess a potus can only ask for a favor if it will hurt him politically, or maybe during his second term when he can’t run again.

when FDR asked england to help
us on D-day, that was an impeachable offense. because it helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, if China agreed with a Trump trade deal that actually stopped its stealing of secrets and balanced trade with the US (which would greatly enhance Trump's chances of winning the next election), would he have asked China to interfere with the election?

Would the Stable Genius lock that up in a special safe place.
Would WH staff be talking to WH legal staff about it and Trump’s involvement.
Would anyone blow a whistle about it

I think neither Trump or you can spin the whistleblowers report

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

exactly. using their logic, that would be an impeachable offense. i guess a potus can only ask for a favor if it will hurt him politically, or maybe during his second term when he can’t run again.

when FDR asked england to help
us on D-day, that was an impeachable offense. because it helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So you think
What IF in 1940
FDR called Churchill
& in response to UK’s request for weapons said, “We’ve always been good to your country, but I would like to ask a favor... open an investigation on Wendell Wilkie”???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would the Stable Genius lock that up in a special safe place.
Would WH staff be talking to WH legal staff about it and Trump’s involvement.
Would anyone blow a whistle about it

I think neither Trump or you can spin the whistleblowers report

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but yesterday, before anyone was aware of any attempted coverup, liberals were saying that the impeachable offense was asking a foreign power for a favor that would help him politically.

just for a moment, let’s put any cover up stories aside...

is it, or is it not, an impeachable
offense for a president to ask a foreign leader for a favor which would benefit the president politically?

hard to keep up with the moving goalposts. first there was a quid pro quo, then when that was disproved the offense was the political benefit, now the offense is burying records?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but yesterday, before anyone was aware of any attempted coverup, liberals were saying that the impeachable offense was asking a foreign power for a favor that would help him politically.

just for a moment, let’s put any cover up stories aside...

is it, or is it not, an impeachable
offense for a president to ask a foreign leader for a favor which would benefit the president politically?

hard to keep up with the moving goalposts. first there was a quid pro quo, then when that was disproved the offense was the political benefit, now the offense is burying records?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Impeachable offense doesn’t change
The Stable Genius took an oath to uphold the Constitution
He used aid to attempt to get a political advantage for himself
Game over
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you read the whistleblowers report?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DNI just said that the most urgent threat America faces is not a military strike from a foreign nation but an attempt to undermine the integrity of our election system. Let that sink in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would the Stable Genius lock that up in a special safe place.
Would WH staff be talking to WH legal staff about it and Trump’s involvement.
Would anyone blow a whistle about it

I think neither Trump or you can spin the whistleblowers report


I was responding to Nebe's post. I thought the yardstick was interfering with an election.

As for the whistleblower stuff, Maguire pointed out good legal stuff that cast a lack of credibility or legal pertinence re it. As well, the whistleblower transcript didn't jive with the phone transcript.

I was responding to Nebe's post. I thought the yardstick was interfering with an election.

As for the whistleblower stuff, Maguire pointed out good legal stuff that cast a lack of credibility or legal pertinence re it. As well, the whistleblower transcript didn't jive with the phone transcript.

This is like the watergate break-in using a foreign government through the enticement of military arms sales. Trump managed to combine two of the biggest scandals in presidential history: Iran-contra-watergate.
Just keep spinning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DNI just said that the most urgent threat America faces is not a military strike from a foreign nation but an attempt to undermine the integrity of our election system. Let that sink in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, let that sink in. The fake Russia collusion fiasco was a prime example of attempting to undermine that integrity. It appears, as well, that this whistleblower thing is another attempt. As well was Biden's corrupt extortion of Ukraine a collateral besmirch and belittling of our election system.

As well, all the piling on mischaracterization of Trump being a Nazi, misogynist, racist, homophobe, genderphobe, blah--blah, is a huge attempt to undermine the integrity of our election system.

This is like the watergate break-in using a foreign government through the enticement of military arms sales. Trump managed to combine two of the biggest scandals in presidential history: Iran-contra-watergate.
Just keep spinning
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was my spin, exactly? And your spin in this post is blatant.

not when you refuse to look at it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Can't look at what's not there. Trump and Rudy spouting conspiracy theories isn't evidence.

Impeachable offense doesn’t change
The Stable Genius took an oath to uphold the Constitution
He used aid to attempt to get a political advantage for himself
Game over


This is gibberish. Your constant spinning has made you dizzy.

Trump managed to combine two of the biggest scandals in presidential history:


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is the biggest scandal in Presidential history

Trump tweeted today

A whistleblower with second hand information? Another Fake News Story! See what was said on the very nice, no pressure, call. Another Witch Hunt!

Odd that the whistleblower got the details close without seeing the memo, it would be close to impossible to make them up months ago and have them match a document released today and be FAKE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you think
What IF in 1940
FDR called Churchill
& in response to UK’s request for weapons said, “We’ve always been good to your country, but I would like to ask a favor... open an investigation on Wendell Wilkie”???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if biden didn’t want the attention, he could have easily avoided what is at a minimum, a glaring appearance of
impropriety.

again, why was it ok for democrats in the us senate to ask ukraine to investigate Trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again, why was it ok for democrats in the us senate to ask ukraine to investigate Trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim, it was because Ukraine wasn't cooperating with the Mueller investigation, it was about Manafort not Trump and it was made right out in public.

You're having that fruit problem again.

These are the kind of mistakes you make when your world is starting to implode.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/867641/white-house-accidentally-emailed-ukraine-talking-points-nancy-pelosi

:jester:

if biden didn’t want the attention, he could have easily avoided what is at a minimum, a glaring appearance of
impropriety.

again, why was it ok for democrats in the us senate to ask ukraine to investigate Trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You’re speaking I assume of the letter filed in the Senate record to Ukraine.
Who’s hiding anything there?
What personal gains do the Senators achieve?
I attached the letter, perhaps you could point out where they asked for Trump to be investigated.
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Pr osecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investiga tion.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's Trump roping Mike Pence into the Ukraine scandal: "I think you should ask for VP Pence's conversation, b/c he had a couple of conversations also. I could save you a lot of time -- they're all perfect." 👀

When Trump goes down and takes everyone in his cabinet with him, we might get our first female President

Nancy Pelosi


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These are the kind of mistakes you make when your world is starting to implode.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/867641/white-house-accidentally-emailed-ukraine-talking-points-nancy-pelosi

:jester:

Unless the whistle blower wants to see mike pence president. Maybe that whistle blower is mike pence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, it was because Ukraine wasn't cooperating with the Mueller investigation, it was about Manafort not Trump and it was made right out in public.

You're having that fruit problem again.

oh. so if our government concludes ukraine isn’t doing its part ( which is subjective, obviously), it’s ok to pressure them
to investigate political
adversaries.

how do you know that’s not what trump did.

the fruit here, is the bananas where your brain is supposed to be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's Trump roping Mike Pence into the Ukraine scandal: "I think you should ask for VP Pence's conversation, b/c he had a couple of conversations also. I could save you a lot of time -- they're all perfect." 👀

When Trump goes down and takes everyone in his cabinet with him, we might get our first female President

Nancy Pelosi


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump is going down? two thirds of the senate is going to vote to remove him? that’s what you’re saying?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh. so if our government concludes ukraine isn’t doing its part ( which is subjective, obviously), it’s ok to pressure them
to investigate political
adversaries.
Manafort was the subject of a criminal FBI investigation. You do know he's in Jail right now right?

Manafort was the subject of a criminal FBI investigation. You do know he's in Jail right now right?

i do!

and when obama was caught on a live mic asking a russian official to hold off missile programs
until after his re election, at which time he’d “have more flexibility” to work with them...that wasn’t a president asking russia for a favor for political gain?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i do!

and when obama was caught on a live mic asking a russian official to hold off missile programs
until after his re election, at which time he’d “have more flexibility” to work with them...that wasn’t a president asking russia for a favor for political gain?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't see how that benefited him politically. He's simply saying it will be easier to come to an agreement that's beneficial to our country.

Hearing exurbs from the whistle blower complaint is really damning, you better circle those red wagons closer, this is going to be fun watching Trump and Rudy implode. I have no doubt the witch hunt and presidential harassment lines will be flying on the steps of the White House and in this board.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Exurb
Enough is enough for Gods sake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't see how that benefited him politically. He's simply saying it will be easier to come to an agreement that's beneficial to our country.

if it didn’t benefit him politically, why did he specifically ask them
to wait until after his final
election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exurb
Enough is enough for Gods sake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve told you many times I couldn’t care less to go hunt down glasses, are you having trouble understanding the meaning, you probably are the worst at crossword puzzles.

You do keep showing how small you are and that in and of itself is worth not hunting down the glasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re speaking I assume of the letter filed in the Senate record to Ukraine.
Who’s hiding anything there?
What personal gains do the Senators achieve?
I attached the letter, perhaps you could point out where they asked for Trump to be investigated.
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Pr osecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investiga tion.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i do!

and when obama was caught on a live mic asking a russian official to hold off missile programs
until after his re election, at which time he’d “have more flexibility” to work with them...that wasn’t a president asking russia for a favor for political gain?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't see how that benefited him politically. He's simply saying it will be easier to come to an agreement that's beneficial to our country.

if it didn’t benefit him politically, why did he specifically ask them
to wait until after his final
election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you can't answer a question, once again you hypocritically pivot to a new ButObama claim, trying to conflate something, anything with what Trump, whom you don't really like but defend tirelessly, did.

As to your latest distraction, there is a vast difference between saying this is not the time to negotiate that and saying we have a good relationship, not reciprocal, but do me a favor, investigate my opponent and you'll get your missiles that you asked for.
One is normal practice and the other, with the ask and the get, is why Trump will likely be impeached.

this whistleblower is a joke.......guess the dummycraps didn't learn from their Kavanaugh fiasco

When you can't answer a question, once again you hypocritically pivot to a new ButObama claim, trying to conflate something, anything with what Trump, whom you don't really like but defend tirelessly, did.

As to your latest distraction, there is a vast difference between saying this is not the time to negotiate that and saying we have a good relationship, not reciprocal, but do me a favor, investigate my opponent and you'll get your missiles that you asked for.
One is normal practice and the other, with the ask and the get, is why Trump will likely be impeached.

what question can’t i answer?

how am i being a hypocrite? i’m pointing out your hypocrisy. if it was ok for obama to ask the russians forma favor to help him politically, why can’t trump do it?

by the way, if biden didn’t do
Anything wrong, there’s no reason to fear an investigation.

i agree trump will likely be impeached. there’s a real chance this helps him, not hurt him. if
you can’t comcede that possibility, you have no idea why he got elected.

it will reduce the chances biden ( best bet to unseat him) is the nominee, and might make Trump appear to be the victim of a witch hunt to all except people
who weren’t going to vote for him
anyway.

if one genuinely believes it’s an impeachable offense, one has an obligation to impeach. if it’s all
an attempt to keep him from getting re elected ( which al green explicitly admitted to on msnbc) that’s a political gamble. sometimes gambles pay off, sometimes they don’t.

i think trump will happily take house impeachment if it means biden isn’t the nominee.

and if the reason obama
said “now isn't the time” was based on his upcoming re election ( and there’s no other
conceivable conclusion if to listen to what he said), then both are cases of a potus asking a foreign power for a favor that reaped political benefits for the potus. yesterday, all the libs were saying that in and of itself, is an impeachable offense. again, if that’s true, fine, but let’s apply it consistently. if
you refuse to apply it consistently, then it’s not a true principle.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve told you many times I couldn’t care less to go hunt down glasses, are you having trouble understanding the meaning, you probably are the worst at crossword puzzles.

You do keep showing how small you are and that in and of itself is worth not hunting down the glasses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Crossword puzzles.... use those letters for jumble and see what you come up with.
Haha, you make a point using the “word” exurb! Priceless
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Crossword puzzles.... use those letters for jumble and see what you come up with.
Haha, you make a point using the “word” exurb! Priceless
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe pictures will help you if you are slow in picking up a word meaning, you do know there are adult continuing education classes you can sign up for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One is normal practice and the other, with the ask and the get, is why Trump will likely be impeached.
Pete, Jim has a fruit problem. It's been ongoing for years. Maybe he has scurvy :rtfm:

Pete, Jim has a fruit problem. It's been ongoing for years. Maybe he has scurvy :rtfm:

from the guy who couldn’t bear to come on here for weeks after the election, too busy jerking off to an obama poster.

i can, and have, praised
and criticized both sides. you can’t, not once, not ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the guy who couldn’t bear to come on here for weeks after the election, too busy jerking off to an obama poster.
God Jim, that’s a new low. Have you been conferring with Raider Ronnie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God Jim, that’s a new low. Have you been conferring with Raider Ronnie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but your insults aren’t low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but your insults aren’t low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God Jim, that’s a new low. Have you been conferring with Raider Ronnie?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s the repressed homosexual fantasies I was talking about a few days ago with conservatives. Let it out Jim !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what question can’t i answer?

how am i being a hypocrite? i’m pointing out your hypocrisy.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You’re speaking I assume of the letter filed in the Senate record to Ukraine.
Who’s hiding anything there?
What personal gains do the Senators achieve?
I attached the letter, perhaps you could point out where they asked for Trump to be investigated.
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/m...estigation.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but your insults aren’t low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he is "doublestandardman"

repressed homosexual fantasies

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you have an obsession with this subject...hmmmmm:rolleyes:

Sailor👍🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sailor👍🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Easy there Chief :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right out of the democrap play book....I wonder what they will pull next in their 4 year long hissy fit:mad:

VDH
"Contrary to suggestions by some, most Trump supporters are not automatons or blind supporters. What bothers them, and should bother others, about the latest Ukraine hysterias is the familiar monotony of this latest scripted psychodrama.

The whistleblower admits to hearsay (“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described”). His term-paper report is laden with anonymously sourced rumors, e.g., “According to multiple White House officials I spoke with,” “I was told by White House officials,” “Based on my understanding,” “I learned from multiple officials,” “I do not know whether similar measures were taken,” “I do not know whether those officials spoke with or met with . . . ”


Between references to Internet news accounts and “I heard from” and “I learned from” and “I do not know” anonymous officials, there is nothing here to launch an impeachment of any president.

In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

After nearly three years of this, we know the delivery system that ensues. Along with the sensationalized initial media hype, the promised “smoking gun” leak usually follows. But when the “overwhelming” evidence or “walls are closing in” documents are released, there is no criminal act to be found other than occasional art-of-the-deal bluster from Trump. And then on to the next crude coup attempt"

right out of the democrap play book....I wonder what they will pull next in their 4 year long hissy fit:mad:

VDH
"Contrary to suggestions by some, most Trump supporters are not automatons or blind supporters. What bothers them, and should bother others, about the latest Ukraine hysterias is the familiar monotony of this latest scripted psychodrama.

The whistleblower admits to hearsay (“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described”). His term-paper report is laden with anonymously sourced rumors, e.g., “According to multiple White House officials I spoke with,” “I was told by White House officials,” “Based on my understanding,” “I learned from multiple officials,” “I do not know whether similar measures were taken,” “I do not know whether those officials spoke with or met with . . . ”


Between references to Internet news accounts and “I heard from” and “I learned from” and “I do not know” anonymous officials, there is nothing here to launch an impeachment of any president.

In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

After nearly three years of this, we know the delivery system that ensues. Along with the sensationalized initial media hype, the promised “smoking gun” leak usually follows. But when the “overwhelming” evidence or “walls are closing in” documents are released, there is no criminal act to be found other than occasional art-of-the-deal bluster from Trump. And then on to the next crude coup attempt"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPsY07uMr-0

Can you tell me whether soliciting or accepting foreign election assistance is illegal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you tell me whether soliciting or accepting foreign election assistance is illegal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you mean when Hillary did it and paid for it? or when Bill was shaking down the Communist Chinese?....or all the questionable money that flowed into Obamas campaign from overseas?

Can you tell me whether soliciting or accepting foreign election assistance is illegal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i honestly don’t know. but since i presume you’re saying it was illegal, why wasn’t it illegal when obama asked russia to postpone missile policy until after his re election, and he pushed them to do so by saying once his last election was behind him, he’d “have more flexibility “ to work with them. that’s a quid quo pro - do what i ask, and then i’ll help you in ways i wouldn’t be able to do, if i had to worry about getting elected again.

Make that wrong. You can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whataboutism at its finest. Let’s look at the past a different way, maybe regardless of you two trying to make it the same, it really isn’t and for the sake of argument let’s say it’s close; I guess your party was asleep at the wheel and the evil dems aren’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i honestly don’t know. but since i presume you’re saying it was illegal, why wasn’t it illegal when obama asked russia to postpone missile policy until after his re election, and he pushed them to do so by saying once his last election was behind him, he’d “have more flexibility “ to work with them. that’s a quid quo pro - do what i ask, and then i’ll help you in ways i wouldn’t be able to do, if i had to worry about getting elected again.

Make that wrong. You can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Saying I don't want to negotiate that now is not the same as saying: We have a good relationship, not equal and you want more missiles (I know the survival of your country depends on them, and both of us know I'm holding them hostage) but do me a favor and investigate my political opponent.

That's the ask and the get. Then they hid it in a different server so others in the government could not see it. What else they buried, will be the next thing to come out.

I don't have to make what Trump did wrong, it is and it is a violation of his oath of office. He is exactly who I have said he is all along.

Putin's Puppet

Trump 2020
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whataboutism at its finest. Let’s look at the past a different way, maybe regardless of you two trying to make it the same, it really isn’t and for the sake of argument let’s say it’s close; I guess your party was asleep at the wheel and the evil dems aren’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whataboutism...so there's no valid argument to be mad in pointing to examples of obama and senate democrats doing what you want to impeach trump for?

As detbuch said, youve never heard of the concept of precedent?

Saying I don't want to negotiate that now is not the same as saying: We have a good relationship, not equal and you want more missiles (I know the survival of your country depends on them, and both of us know I'm holding them hostage) but do me a favor and investigate my political opponent.

That's the ask and the get. Then they hid it in a different server so others in the government could not see it. What else they buried, will be the next thing to come out.

I don't have to make what Trump did wrong, it is and it is a violation of his oath of office. He is exactly who I have said he is all along.

Putin's Puppet

"Saying I don't want to negotiate that now"

Funny how you left out the part where Obama said he'd have "more flexibility" to work with them on missile policy, after his re election. He told them that if they waited, he could do more for them.

Whataboutism

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how do you get the tough ones right? :nopain:

Can you tell me whether soliciting or accepting foreign election assistance is illegal?


He didn't solicit election assistance. He sought help in determining if there was illegal activity between Ukraine and various Americans. If that investigation ultimately provides collateral damage to election possibilities for Dems, too bad. ANY agreement with a foreign power that eventually makes it better for America would provide "assistance," if you must frame it that way, for Trump's re-election.

There's nothing in the released phone transcript that directly asks for election assistance. Spinning it as if it somehow amounted to election assistance is evidence of nothing more than duplicity on the part of the spinner.

"Saying I don't want to negotiate that now"

Funny how you left out the part where Obama said he'd have "more flexibility" to work with them on missile policy, after his re election. He told them that if they waited, he could do more for them.

And when someone asks me to negotiate a price for a project and I am in the middle of another one, I say I need to wait until I am done, then we can sit down and figure something out. I have not asked for anything or received anything and have made no commitment to anything. I am not foolish enough to not put the required amount of attention into it and yes, I too would say I can do a better job later when it suits my interests and I need or want to delay.

Donald Trump thinks L’etat, c’est moi and this is obvious in almost all his speech. He is not King, Prince or anything other than the chief administrative officer of a republic. He can and should pursue corruption as other presidents have, but not for his personal gain.

He did, and the rest of the story is not out yet.

He didn't solicit election assistance. He sought help in determining if there was illegal activity between Ukraine and various Americans. If that investigation ultimately provides collateral damage to election possibilities for Dems, too bad. ANY agreement with a foreign power that eventually makes it better for America would provide "assistance," if you must frame it that way, for Trump's re-election.

There's nothing in the released phone transcript that directly asks for election assistance. Spinning it as if it somehow amounted to election assistance is evidence of nothing more than duplicity on the part of the spinner.

Dream on
If this was a corruption case and the Citrus Caligula was the Mayor of a city, he would be indicted for corruption. He has the permit Zelensky needs and asked for, he is holding it for a favor that benefits him, that is the get. Many Dons have gone to prison for less.

He can and should pursue corruption as other presidents have, but not for his personal gain.

He did, and the rest of the story is not out yet.

You don't want to recognize the conundrum that "personal gain" is not avoidable when pursuing that which is good.

But you do seem to think that you can tell us the story before the rest of it is out.

You don't want to recognize the conundrum that "personal gain" is not avoidable when pursuing that which is good.

But you do seem to think that you can tell us the story before the rest of it is out.

If it was acceptable why would you go to unusual measures to hide it?

What else is hidden from the rest of the government to protect the would be King?

What will happen when people realize Ukraine was part of a multinational pre-election "grand bargain" that required Ukraine to approve Russian sanctions relief to get a massive new Middle East contract for Turboatom. You should wonder why Trump sent Rick Perry to Zelensky's inauguration?

If it was acceptable why would you go to unusual measures to hide it?

In this unusual political environment of constant leaks and misrepresentations, it would be wise to protect personal conversations with foreign leaders. Why would foreign leaders want to have personal conversations with their counterparts if they could not be confidential?

What else is hidden from the rest of the government to protect the would be King?

Your constant name-calling and distortion (lying?) is but a small sample in the larger world of rabid opposition "journalism" and treacherous political opponents who choose to pursue destruction and power rather than cooperation in solving current problems.

And this hyper attempt to destroy Trump is not without a deeper reason than just mere politics.

There is a lot of "hiding" going on in order to deflect from who, and why, began the phony notion that Trump colluded with Russia. And expanding the cover-up by constantly turning up whatever phony little stone that Trump is supposedly guilty of in order to keep the deception going until the next election where he can be deposed, and the threat of exposing those who created collusion narratives can then still be hidden, perhaps forever.

Your constant name-calling and distortion (lying?) is but a small sample in the larger world of rabid opposition "journalism" and treacherous political opponents who choose to pursue destruction and power rather than cooperation in solving current problems.

Are you talking about this guy?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Liddle’ Adam Schiff, Sleepy Creepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Pocahantas, Alfred E. Neuman, Lying Ted, Little Rocket Man, Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb, Cryin’ Chuck and more.


And this hyper attempt to destroy Trump is not without a deeper reason than just mere politics.

You should worry more about Trump's consigliere Colludy and his shadow State Department than me, he's on a one man mission with lots of media coverage to take down Trump and his entire cabinet.

There is a lot of "hiding" going on in order to deflect from who, and why, began the phony notion that Trump colluded with Russia.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6432520-The-NRA-Russia-How-a-Tax-Exempt-Organization

And expanding the cover-up by constantly turning up whatever phony little stone that Trump is supposedly guilty of in order to keep the deception going until the next election where he can be deposed, and the threat of exposing those who created collusion narratives can then still be hidden, perhaps forever.

Keep defending the Liar in Chief, he claims that we fund Ukraine and Europe does not? Just another in the long list of lies.

“The top donors for Ukraine in 2016-2017 are: European Institutions ($425.2 million), US ($204.4), Germany ($189.8), Japan ($180.8), Poland ($42.5), Sweden ($34.6), UK ($31.6) and Switzerland ($29.6).”

Remember the whistle-blower crisis is following the same track as the slow-roll on acknowledging Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels payments and reimbursed Cohen - first a denial, then an admission of part, then an admission of other parts while saying there was nothing wrong with it. Before you know it he will agree with you that it is SOP for politicians, if he hasn't already.

White House said today that lawyers directed moving documents to highly secure system.

Trump has a history of using his lawyers to commit crimes for him—on the incorrect presumption they can't testify against him. He did it again here: shaking down a foreign power using his lawyer as a criminal instrument.

This Ukraine incident, and it consists of more than just his phone call, would be described—were it anyone but this president—as a crime spree: extortion, bribery, witness tampering, conspiracy, illegal solicitation of foreign campaign donations, obstruction of justice, Logan Act crimes and more. It's a historic scandal.

But the part that's truly crazy, and I know astonishes criminal lawyers the nation over, is that all of the principals have either confessed to the crimes, confessed to intent to commit the crimes, or accused other people of the same conduct and called the conduct criminal.

If you think Clinton committed a crime by hiring a law firm that hired a nonpartisan research firm that hired an independent contractor to conduct routine opposition research, you also think presidents can't extort foreign leaders for personal gain. Not f*cking rocket science.

Soon Trump is going to be claiming he couldn't have violated the Constitution because he's never read it :jester:

On May 13th Russian state TV reported that no US officials would be attending the inauguration in Ukraine, on direct orders from Trump. According to the whistle-blower, on May 14th Trump ordered Pence not to attend.

How did the Russians know that?

Whataboutism...so there's no valid argument to be mad in pointing to examples of obama and senate democrats doing what you want to impeach trump for?

As detbuch said, youve never heard of the concept of precedent?

I don't see them as anyway close to the same and trying to debate that point is a circular discussion, so I'm not going to attempt it. As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical, when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules. I know you three or four can spin this until you fingers hurt, but even if they don't get the votes in the senate and I"m not so sure some Republicans not in a strong position moving forward might not flip; this will not help Trump moving forward.

I maintain, this is the most corrupt president and administration of our life time, I think history will see it that way and if you don't; it's ok because I know in your minds the means justify the end. Trump island isn't a place I want to live and his complete disregard for the environment for another four years would do serious harm long term. I suspect our allies and foes are not to happy with where the leading nation of the free world is and I have no doubt they know the blame lies at the top of this corrupt food chain.

But hey keep circling the wagons, get those MAGA hats washed and ready, buckle up it's going to be a bumpy ride into 2020.

I don't see them as anyway close to the same and trying to debate that point is a circular discussion, so I'm not going to attempt it. As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical, when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules. I know you three or four can spin this until you fingers hurt, but even if they don't get the votes in the senate and I"m not so sure some Republicans not in a strong position moving forward might not flip; this will not help Trump moving forward.

I maintain, this is the most corrupt president and administration of our life time, I think history will see it that way and if you don't; it's ok because I know in your minds the means justify the end. Trump island isn't a place I want to live and his complete disregard for the environment for another four years would do serious harm long term. I suspect our allies and foes are not to happy with where the leading nation of the free world is and I have no doubt they know the blame lies at the top of this corrupt food chain.

But hey keep circling the wagons, get those MAGA hats washed and ready, buckle up it's going to be a bumpy ride into 2020.
^^^^^^ This

PENCE 2020!

As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical,

I find that what you say destroys any credibility in any of your comments here. I did not say that precedent "makes this a nothingburger". Putting words in my mouth in order to debunk what I said is a form of lying that debunks whatever you say. Precedent is meaningful, calling something "whataboutism" is meaningless. It is a copout from acknowledging any importance in a statement you would rather not discuss.

when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules.

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

Boy are you naive if you think that's what Trump was doing, but hey I get it, the right needs to spin this now and it's going to be very hard to do. Let's even assume for a minute those where Trump's noble intentions, which based on history of behavior is a stretch on it's own, what about holding up tax payer paid for, bipartisan military funds until the leader of a foreign government agree's to give him a favor? You keep spinning baby, you guys are good at it, I"m going to enjoy the show.

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.
Yea, asking to investigate something where there's no evidence of wrongdoing, subject just happens to be the leading political opponent and you're only interested in corruption that benefits you personally.

Right.

"Total panic as the reality of the jeopardy for President Trump begins to set in... The panic within the White House comes as we learn new details about the impeachment inquiry on Capitol Hill. Democrats signaling they're poised to move fast" Nicole Wallace



Rudy Giuliani is now saying he knew Joe Biden and associates would kill him for investigating Ukrainian situation.

Tulsi Gabbard is now the first Republican sitting member of Congress to support Impeachment.

Secretary of State POMPEO has been subpoenaed by House committees to produce Ukraine documents.

And the committees have set a schedule of 5 depositions:

October 2: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
October 3: Ambassador Kurt Volker
October 7: Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent
October 8: Counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl
October 10: Ambassador Gordon Sondland


Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
5:03 PM · May 3, 2016

Tulsi Gabbard is now the first Republican sitting member of Congress to support Impeachment.

Um wha?

Boy are you naive if you think that's what Trump was doing, but hey I get it, the right needs to spin this now and it's going to be very hard to do. Let's even assume for a minute those where Trump's noble intentions, which based on history of behavior is a stretch on it's own, what about holding up tax payer paid for, bipartisan military funds until the leader of a foreign government agree's to give him a favor? You keep spinning baby, you guys are good at it, I"m going to enjoy the show.

So you don't know what you're talking about re the Constitution and the phone call.

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.

“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”

“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”

”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/impeachment-the-constitution-s-fiduciary-meaning-of-high-misdemeanors

or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1

Um wha?

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.

“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”

“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”

”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/impeachment-the-constitution-s-fiduciary-meaning-of-high-misdemeanors

or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1

There is no solid evidence, only assumption or conjecture, that Trump asked for assistance for personal gain.

Yea, asking to investigate something where there's no evidence of wrongdoing, subject just happens to be the leading political opponent and you're only interested in corruption that benefits you personally.

Right.

You're making unsubstantiated assumptions. Typical. Right.

Actually, the AG is currently investigating the provenance of Trump being accused of Russian collusion, and the Ukraine has possible pertinent documentation as evidence. It is perfectly within the legal right of the US to ask for cooperation on that matter. As well there is apparently a treaty between the US and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, which would make Trump's asking for assistance not only legal but mandatory.

As an aside, what's laughable, the supposed Trump/Russian collusion was investigated without actual evidence that it existed. I recall that almost until the Mueller report, congressional Dems admitted that there was no evidence of Trump collusion.

Um wha?

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just checking to see if you were paying attention:wave:

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was one of the funniest sketches that I used to hear repeated on various radio stations. I wanted to find some way to slip that in on one of these threads. You found the perfect post to do it. :kewl:

Keep defending the Liar in Chief, he claims that we fund Ukraine and Europe does not? Just another in the long list of lies.


I believe he said something to the effect that they don't do enough, not that they didn't do anything. Ukraine President agreed with him and said that the US helps more than other of his European neighbors.

There is no solid evidence, only assumption or conjecture, that Trump asked for assistance for personal gain.

If you're speaking of a quid pro quo as far as evidence goes
1. Don’t need one
2. It’s arguably direct
3. It’s certainly indirect

But ask a prosecuting attorney if he would have enough evidence to feel confident of convicting Trump and his co-conspirators on conspiracy, bribery, campaign finance violations and other charges. There are rarely smoking guns in any of those cases, then again most perpetrators don't say I did it, or look it's alright, they committed that crime also.

But it doesn't matter, that is why it is held in Congress. It is a political event. Because what you do as President is and should be held to a far higher standard than what you do as a citizen.

The criminal trial comes later.

I believe he said something to the effect that they don't do enough, not that they didn't do anything. Ukraine President agreed with him and said that the US helps more than other of his European neighbors.

You believe incorrectly

You don't disagree with the guy with the checkbook, if you have the Russians taking over your country.
Look at Zelensky's face when Trump says he should talk to Putin and arrange something.

If you're speaking of a quid pro quo as far as evidence goes
1. Don’t need one
2. It’s arguably direct
3. It’s certainly indirect

But ask a prosecuting attorney if he would have enough evidence to feel confident of convicting Trump and his co-conspirators on conspiracy, bribery, campaign finance violations and other charges. There are rarely smoking guns in any of those cases, then again most perpetrators don't say I did it, or look it's alright, they committed that crime also.

But it doesn't matter, that is why it is held in Congress. It is a political event. Because what you do as President is and should be held to a far higher standard than what you do as a citizen.

The criminal trial comes later.

Like I said, you don't have solid evidence. Just conjecture.

As an aside, what's laughable, the supposed Trump/Russian collusion was investigated without actual evidence that it existed.

If evidence exists you don't need an investigation, you go to trial.

Originally Posted by detbuch
I believe he said something to the effect that they don't do enough, not that they didn't do anything. Ukraine President agreed with him and said that the US helps more than other of his European neighbors.

Pete F. quote: You believe incorrectly

Here is excerpt from transcript re that discussion:

Trump: I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than European countries ARE DOING And they should be helping MORE THAN THEY ARE . . . Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything [obviously, in light of the rest of what he says, this is typical Trump comparative exaggeration]. A lot of European countries are the same way.

Zelensky: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%. I did talk to Angela Merkel . . . I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions . . . it turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our bigger partner . . . the U.S, is a much bigger partner.


Pete F.: You don't disagree with the guy with the checkbook, if you have the Russians taking over your country.
Look at Zelensky's face when Trump says he should talk to Putin and arrange something.

So you think Zelensky is lying. But that is conjecture. I can't see Zelensky's face on the transcript. Even if I could, different folks would "interpret" his face differently. "Interpret," not "know" being the key words when trying to stick to facts.

As I said, you don't have solid evidence. Just conjecture. As usual.

If evidence exists you don't need an investigation, you go to trial.

If evidence doesn't exist, then you don't go to trial.

Still willing to wager Trump
Rolls for president in 2020
$?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The speed of all this info coming out about Trump’s corruption is a good reminder that treating everyone like #^&#^&#^&#^& ultimately catches up to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch for lots of people in Trump’s orbit now try to transition from cowardly to courageous. It’s CYA time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Support for impeachment grew among Democratic, Republican and independent voters alike. Democratic support jumped from 59 percent to 78 percent, a 19-point increase. The number of Republicans backing impeachment jumped 5 points to 18 percent.
The number of independents who back impeachment doubled to 41 percent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

Trump has not been found guilty of any of those things while being President. Nor does asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional fall under any of those crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

Oh goodie . . . George Conway. His explanations are gold.

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor.

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor nor even how it puts his own interests above the nation's.

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

"exactly . . . appears"? Appears is conjecture. It can appear any way you want to frame it. But all that is "known" is that he asked for assistance from a foreign power which may have information that could clarify whether or not Americans (including the Bidens) had done something criminal or unconstitutional. Whether that could help him in the eyes of the electorate (which it should if the information so demonstrates) that is an unavoidable collateral result.

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

"IF Trump did that"? That's supposed to explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor?

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

Wait, so now we're switching from "if" to "did"? And from the phone call to the Mueller stuff? The Mueller stuff is over and it was determined that he "didn't" in one case and not sufficient evidence that he did in the other. Which in a court of law dismisses both counts.

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

Now this is pure, unsubstantiated conjecture. But you do resort to that a lot.

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

Asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is worse? I think his reasoning, or lack of it, is worse.

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

You just love this "might have happened" and "almost inevitable" kind of stuff. It's your kind of argumentation. Conjecture, innuendo, possibility, maybe, could be . . . But, problem is, it doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”


Apparently Congress (you know, ALL the members of the House and SENATE) don't "know" or agree which one Trump is. But you sure think you do. Trouble is, just piling on one conjecture on top of another, in huge quantities doesn't give validity to any of them. And it sure does not explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

And it sure does not explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.



Constitution for dummies...

The main role of the executive branch is to enforce the nation's laws. It also leads the country's relations with foreign nations, commands the armed forces, and even participates in the lawmaking process. The Constitution makes the president of the United States the head of the executive branch.

Apparently Congress (you know, ALL the members of the House and SENATE) don't "know" or agree which one Trump is. But you sure think you do. Trouble is, just piling on one conjecture on top of another, in huge quantities doesn't give validity to any of them. And it sure does not explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Linda Tripp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Constitution for dummies...

The main role of the executive branch is to enforce the nation's laws. It also leads the country's relations with foreign nations, commands the armed forces, and even participates in the lawmaking process. The Constitution makes the president of the United States the head of the executive branch.

Yes, and relations with foreign nations includes various treaties. For instance, as a matter of fact, not of conjecture, the U.S. has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine, as well as with many other countries.

This synopsis from Wikipedia: "Modern states have developed mechanisms for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations and prosecutions. When evidence or other forms of legal assistance, such as witness statements or the service of documents, are needed from a foreign sovereign, states may attempt to cooperate informally through their respective police agencies or, alternatively, resort to what is typically referred to as requests for “mutual legal assistance." The practice of mutual legal assistance developed from the comity-based system of letters rogatory, though it is now far more common for states to make mutual legal assistance requests directly to the designated Central Authority within each state. In contemporary practice, such requests may still be made on the basis of reciprocity but may also be made pursuant to bilateral and multilateral treaties that obligate countries to provide assistance.
This assistance may take the form of examining and identifying people, places and things, custodial transfers, and providing assistance with the immobilization of the instruments of criminal activity."

As a matter of fact, not conjecture, we have ongoing DOJ criminal investigations on the matters of the Russian collusion fiasco. Ukraine may have pertinent information that would help clarify and inform those investigations.

Trump's asking for mutual aid in those investigations is not illegal, not unconstitutional, not a high crime or misdemeanor. His phone call to the Ukraine head of state did not become improper or illegal when he made the request for assistance. And the Biden bit FOLLOWED the general request as an also, because he interfered with the Ukraine legal process not by seeking investigatory evidence, but by shutting it down through coercion against the will of the Ukraine head of state. As well, his son was being investigated in the process that Biden coerced the Ukraine to quit.

This is how investigation’s work. Often you start with hearsay, which helps you identify witnesses, just like what’s in the whistleblower complaint. This is where public corruption investigations often start.
If this was all above board, why was it hidden from the rest of the administration along with communications with Putin and MBS?
As more and more emerges, the narrative gets harder to maintain.
But keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On July 16, 2018 Trump reiterated he took Putin’s word while betraying the United States. Last night we learned in 2017 not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election. He told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned.

Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is how investigation’s work. Often you start with hearsay, which helps you identify witnesses, just like what’s in the whistleblower complaint. This is where public corruption investigations often start.
If this was all above board, why was it hidden from the rest of the administration along with communications with Putin and MBS?
As more and more emerges, the narrative gets harder to maintain.
But keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s past hearsay. The IG has already established credibility.

Detbuch can spread all the disinformation he wants, the facts aren’t changing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is how investigation’s work. Often you start with hearsay, which helps you identify witnesses, just like what’s in the whistleblower complaint. This is where public corruption investigations often start.
If this was all above board, why was it hidden from the rest of the administration along with communications with Putin and MBS?
As more and more emerges, the narrative gets harder to maintain.
But keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No doubt you will keep conjecturing and insinuating.

On July 16, 2018 Trump reiterated he took Putin’s word while betraying the United States. Last night we learned in 2017 not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election. He told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned.

Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Taking Putin's word is not "betraying" the United States. Don't know what he meant by not being concerned. I'm sure you think it's very nefarious and treasonous.

It’s past hearsay. The IG has already established credibility.

Detbuch can spread all the disinformation he wants, the facts aren’t changing.


You're sounding like a propagandist. Maybe because you are? I did not spread disinformation. I presented facts. And I didn't use mushy language like "The IG has already established credibility."

Remember this
"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor in integrity to the office you don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember this
"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor in integrity to the office you don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."


Is this some Progressive interpretation? The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. Honor and integrity may well be needed to make our constitutional republic function as it should. But those are subject to the eyes of the beholder.

On the other hand, subjecting the Constitution merely to the eye of the beholder lacks the honor and integrity required to appropriate any meaning to it at all. If it is subject merely to opinion, it is worthless other than a document that permits any slight of hand the beholder employs in order to fool the rest of us.

The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors in order to impeach. It does not even suggest that accusations of lack of honor or integrity are enough. Suggesting so is dishonorable. It lacks integrity. It is a mischievous trick to falsely use the Constitution as any means to impeach.

Is this some Progressive interpretation? The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. Honor and integrity may well be needed to make our constitutional republic function as it should. But those are subject to the eyes of the beholder.

On the other hand, subjecting the Constitution merely to the eye of the beholder lacks the honor and integrity required to appropriate any meaning to it at all. If it is subject merely to opinion, it is worthless other than a document that permits any slight of hand the beholder employs in order to fool the rest of us.

The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors in order to impeach. It does not even suggest that accusations of lack of honor or integrity are enough. Suggesting so is dishonorable. It lacks integrity. It is a mischievous trick to falsely use the Constitution as any means to impeach.

It’s a quote from Lindsey Graham in 1999.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a quote from Lindsey Graham in 1999.


Is that supposed to make it golden? Lindsey Graham has said a lot of chit in the past. I don't think you particularly like what he has been saying lately. And I don't know the full context of what he was saying. But, as for the snippet you posted, standing alone without further context, the quote amounts to BS. That you give it any credence, for me, just reflects the hypothetical, insinuatory and inflammatory stuff you constantly pedal. And, for me, it lacks sincerity. Are you going to give credence to all the rest of what Graham is saying about the whistleblower stuff, or the collusion stuff, or his praise of Trump's efforts and policies? And BTW Graham, when he was buddy, buddy with McCain, both were semi-Progressives. He seems to have stiffened his "conservative" back lately. Real or not? Maybe depends on which way the wind blows. Lindsey Graham is a consummate politician .

Is that supposed to make it golden? Lindsey Graham has said a lot of chit in the past. I don't think you particularly like what he has been saying lately. And I don't know the full context of what he was saying. But, as for the snippet you posted, standing alone without further context, the quote amounts to BS. That you give it any credence, for me, just reflects the hypothetical, insinuatory and inflammatory stuff you constantly pedal. And, for me, it lacks sincerity. Are you going to give credence to all the rest of what Graham is saying about the whistleblower stuff, or the collusion stuff, or his praise of Trump's efforts and policies? And BTW Graham, when he was buddy, buddy with McCain, both were semi-Progressives. He seems to have stiffened his "conservative" back lately. Real or not? Maybe depends on which way the wind blows. Lindsey Graham is a consummate politician .

One of the many speeches he gave during the Clinton impeachment, which occurred after a witch-hunt that lasted for years and found a blow job.

I think he’s quite a typical Trumplican, willingly accepting Trump’s lies as truth.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.
Trump sat on a dias with Putin and said he asked him if he interfered and Putin told him.
Yesterday we found out that trump, in the Oval Office, told several Russians after telling them he fired Comey, said he didn’t care if they interfered, since we do that also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.
Trump sat on a dias with Putin and said he asked him if he interfered and Putin told him.
Yesterday we found out that trump, in the Oval Office, told several Russians after telling them he fired Comey, said he didn’t care if they interfered, since we do that also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
But her emails Pete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Lindsey

If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

“You know how you make America great again? Tell @realDonaldTrump to go to hell”

If there was ever any doubt that @realDonaldTrump should not be our commander in chief, this stupid statement should end all doubt.

Donald Trump gets his foreign policy from watching television - the Cartoon Network.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd rather Bill Clinton lie about oral sex 1,000 times than Trump sell out America's national security for illegal election assistance even once, how about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd rather Bill Clinton lie about oral sex 1,000 times than Trump sell out America's national security for illegal election assistance even once, how about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good job making s%$t up Peto

Trump sat on a dias with Putin

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this should be illegal

I'd rather Bill Clinton lie about oral sex 1,000 times than Trump sell out America's national security for illegal election assistance even once, how about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You have no morals and this is the cherry on top. Quite the lucky lady Mrs F must be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd rather Bill Clinton lie about oral sex 1,000 times than Trump sell out America's national security for illegal election assistance even once, how about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Spot on. Now Russia is freaking out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Justin Amash
The White House itself released a memorandum of the telephone conversation, and the president has admitted to wrongdoing, even if he claims not to understand why it’s wrong. Nearly every Trump ally’s defense has been an effort to gaslight America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They’re prepping their chutes

“When Barr did learn of that call...he was ‘surprised and angry’ to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani,” said “a person familiar with Barr’s thinking.” So an (authorized?) leak from Barr distancing himself from Trump’s call—and from Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

said “a person familiar with Barr’s thinking."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's a good one:confused:

why is that in quotes in that sentence?

They’re prepping their chutes

“When Barr did learn of that call...he was ‘surprised and angry’ to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani,” said “a person familiar with Barr’s thinking.” So an (authorized?) leak from Barr distancing himself from Trump’s call—and from Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Barr could be prosecuting Rudy soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have no morals and this is the cherry on top. Quite the lucky lady Mrs F must be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Since you support a serial womanizer, admitted molester, accused rapist and philanderer, does Mr Dangles have an issue with your morals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump implied that the whistleblower committed treason.
This from the man who asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

His attacks on whistleblowers will likely increase the very thing that the whistleblower legislation was created to eliminate, leaking.

The ironic part is the man complaining about Fake news and leaking created his image thru an alias (John Baron) leaking fake info and puffery.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other Trump family news this weekend: Jared is giving Ivanka, Eric & Don Jr tips on visiting daddy in prison. No way Tiffany visits and Barron never knew him as dad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

time for your medication Peto

Cabernet works fine, Trump ought to try it instead of Adderall

Something to sleep on

Three life lessons learned from Nancy Pelosi -

Choose your battles wisely -

Timing is everything -

Give the right person enough rope and they'll hang themself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.

Mueller's report made it clear that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump. But you are crafting a string of words here that say there clearly was sufficient evidence. It seems no matter what the facts are, you strive mightily to make them what they are not.

Trump sat on a dias with Putin and said he asked him if he interfered and Putin told him.
Yesterday we found out that trump, in the Oval Office, told several Russians after telling them he fired Comey, said he didn’t care if they interfered, since we do that also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have no compunction in letting yourself twist and torture language to suit your arguments. But you give no quarter to Trump's often careless or sloppy diction. You insist that he means exactly what his words, if used precisely, are supposed to mean. So, if he says he doesn't care, it must show that he has no concern whatsoever.

Umm, no. Trumpspeak in this case means that he understands that they do, just as we do (and everybody else does). And that their interference was not especially effective. But that doesn't mean he has absolutely no concerns about it. He did take some steps to limit outside interference.

Cabernet works fine, Trump ought to try it instead of Adderall

Something to sleep on

Three life lessons learned from Nancy Pelosi -

Choose your battles wisely -

Timing is everything -

Give the right person enough rope and they'll hang themself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You have done it enough to know but you still have a pulse. Trump has you dancing still despite tightening your noose. Good luck in your quest to expose. Timing is everything as you learned. I hope you apply this new science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.
Mueller's report made it clear that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump.
Mueller was prohibited by DOJ rules from indicting Trump.
He gathered evidence for Trump’s eventual indictments.
Trump’s obstruction was successful in preventing him from obtaining evidence from Ukraine.

Trump pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project throughout the election. He lied about it, saying he had no deals, no business in Russia.
Do you honestly think that he still isn’t trying to make a deal still?
Many people say he is

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]


Peto continues to impress...:musc:

Many people say Trump is guilty of fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, insurance fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy against the United States, and sexual assault. He has attacked our allies and praised our enemies. Seven of his aides have been convicted of felonies. He has praised Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Roy Moore. Trump is a criminal president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did Putin manipulateTrump into doing what he did on Ukraine?

Putin certainly benefited when Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. Did the KGB manipulate Trump into believing Ukraine, not Russia, hacked Democratic emails?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has 2020
Pete has nightmares
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump is such a lock, why is he extorting a foreign power to dig up dirt on his primary 2020 opponent? If he is such a lock, why is he looking back at Clinton emails in desperation? If he is such a lock why does he attempt to use fear to bolster support, the latest TV spot stating the dems are going to take basically everything away from you; I’m surprised he didn’t add your next born child. He isn’t confident and that’s why he is ok with putting our national security at risk and why he is ok using our tax dollars to open up old investigations and using fear sadly isn’t new for him it’s just his usual MO. You don’t threaten a whistle blower or other concerned individuals, even going so far as to wish the penalty could be they way spies in the old days were dealt with, unless you yourself are concerned about the truth coming out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did Putin manipulateTrump into doing what he did on Ukraine?

Putin certainly benefited when Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. Did the KGB manipulate Trump into believing Ukraine, not Russia, hacked Democratic emails?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm pretty sure trump is a KGB agent, it's where he and putin met...they were classmates

I'm pretty sure trump is a KGB agent, it's where he and putin met...they were classmates
Not quite, but you’re not that far off.

Trump’s first visit to Moscow was in 1987. The visit was arranged by KGB’s top arm, General Vladimir Alexandrovich Kryuchkov. In the mid eighties, the General realized the world was changing. Russia would be left far behind, if they couldn’t gather intelligence.
In January 1984, Kryuchkov discussed the problem at a review in Moscow, and then again, six months later, at a conference. The demand was crystal clear, the KGB needed to improve their agent recruitment. Once upon a time, Moscow recruited Western individuals who sympathized with Russian ideology. In the mid-eighties, such individuals were hard to find, if not nonexistent. During these conferences, Kryuchkov suggested using money and flattery to lure recruits.
Hmmm……can you think of any prominent Western figures who’d be lured by money and flattery?

Trump had been a target with the KGB for a long time. According to files in Prague, declassified in 2016, Czech spies had been secretly observing Donald Trump and his newlywed Ivana. At the time, Ivana Zelnickova was a 28 year old model from Czechoslovakia, a communist country.
According to the declassified files, the Czech spies would read the letters Ivana sent back home.
The fact that the KGB was interested in recruiting Donald Trump to be a spy is fact. Whether or not Trump replied favorably to their offers of cash and flattery is questionable, but once upon a time, Donald Trump was almost certainly recruited by the KGB.
To become a full KGB agent, a foreigner had to agree to two things. (An “agent” in a Russian or British context was a secret intelligence source.) One was “conspiratorial collaboration.” The other was willingness to take KGB instruction. — Politico

The bottom line is that Trump had been a recruitment target of the KGB for decades.
The recruitment process started when Trump was introduced to Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin in 1986.
Dubinin’s daughter said: “Trump melted at once. He is an emotional person, somewhat impulsive. He needs recognition. And, of course, when he gets it he likes it. My father’s visit worked on him [Trump] like honey to a bee.”
Six months later, Trump is at an Este Lauder luncheon, and just happens to find himself sitting next to Yuri Durbinin. It just seemed too weird that this ambassador, the one who wound up sending Trump to Moscow for the first time, was magically everywhere that Trump was.

Dubinin’s other daughter, Irina, said that her late father — he died in 2013 — was on a mission as ambassador. This was, she said, to make contact with America’s business elite. For sure, Gorbachev’s Politburo was interested in understanding capitalism. But Dubinin’s invitation to Trump to visit Moscow looks like a classic cultivation exercise, which would have had the KGB’s full support and approval. — Politico
According to The Art of the Deal, Trump toured “a half dozen potential sites for a hotel, including several near Red Square.” “I was impressed with the ambition of Soviet officials to make a deal,” he writes.
It seems that Russia kept flaunting the greatest pieces of real estate in front of Trump’s face. Thirty years ago, Trump was so close to making a deal, that still hasn’t occurred. Perhaps Russia was using these properties as bait, to lure Trump along.

Trump’s first visit to Moscow was relatively unproductive. Trump was shown all these beautiful and lucrative real estate properties. He stayed in a hotel room that Lenin stayed in, most likely it was bugged. And then he went home. But Trump did endure one significant change, when he came back from his first Russian trip. As soon as he got back to America, Trump began tossing around the idea of running for president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, I edited that to make it shorter





:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Not quite, but you’re not that far off.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably what happened was that trump was abducted when he visited russia and the russians replaced him with an imposter who is now doing the bidding of the russians or perhaps an alien race...run with that :spin:

probably what happened was that trump was abducted when he visited russia and the russians replaced him with an imposter who is now doing the bidding of the russians or perhaps an alien race...run with that :spin:

Not quite that complicated, they just waited till Trump went bankrupt and bailed him out.

President Donald Trump has attempted to distance himself from allegations of collusion by asserting that he has no business interests in Russia. That’s not for lack of trying: Trump’s efforts to establish a hotel in Moscow go back at least to 1987, when, according to his book The Art of the Deal, he discussed the possibility with the Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin. But the questions regarding the Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russian government go beyond whether Trump has business dealings with Russia. It is just as important, if not more, to understand the many ways that Russia has business with Donald Trump.

That Kremlin-linked entities invested significantly in Trump’s properties over the years is not inherently nefarious. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, wealthy Russians have invested heavily in real estate in the West, while Americans were in turn encouraged to invest in Russia. However, in the context of a president under several investigations for his connections to the Kremlin, Russia’s outsize role in Trump’s reemergence from financial tribulations that nearly destroyed his real estate empire merit additional attention. What emerges is the story of a man indebted to Russia through the oligarchs that President Vladimir Putin helped create and now controls.

Upon taking office, Trump superficially distanced himself from the Trump Organization, ceding day-to-day control to his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. However, he still owns and profits from the company, which gives him an ongoing stake in maintaining the relationships that make his company profitable, and leaked internal emails suggest he retains more control over the Trump Organization’s operations than he publicly acknowledges. Moreover, the relationships and transactions described below occurred long before his political career, at a time when both internal and external sources have described him as exerting almost unilateral control over the organization.

Individually and collectively, these relationships form the underpinning of the Russia scandal. The Kremlin has a long history of using compromising information, or kompromat, to exert leverage over businesspeople and politicians, both in Russia and abroad. As a result, the question of whether Trump is financially compromised goes beyond the simple question of whether he or his company is directly in debt to Russian banks—something the president denies but has yet to demonstrate by releasing his tax returns. The president’s myriad financial entanglements with individuals from Russia and the former Soviet Union may provide Russia with such kompromat, especially given the substantial evidence that Trump and the Trump Organization have engaged in questionably legal practices, many of which are outlined below. (The Trump Organization has repeatedly denied, both in specific cases and in general, that it has acted illegally or unethically in its business practices.)

This does not intend to suggest that all of Trump’s clients and partners from Russia and the former Soviet Union are individually connected to the Kremlin, nor that each deal is individually corrupt or connected to Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Instead, the goal is to highlight how dependent Trump’s company has been on Russian money, a fact he has repeatedly denied, and to explicate how those connections appear to have laid the foundation for what occurred in 2016. As such, this explainer explores the totality of those business dealings, ranging from projects whose financing comes from sources directly linked to the Kremlin to potentially corrupt dealings in Azerbaijan and Georgia to the allegations that some of Trump’s Russian and Soviet buyers and business partners have used his properties as vehicles for money laundering, all of which could have generated the type of compromising material the Russian government is known to exploit.
Trump almost certainly wouldn’t have survived the period without the financial support of his father, Fred Trump, who not only loaned his son millions of dollars to keep his struggling businesses afloat but also helped orchestrate massive, likely illegal tax fraud schemes to hide those transactions from authorities. Unfortunately for Trump, that safety net disappeared in the late 1990s, first when Trump and his siblings officially took over the family company in 1997 and later when his father died in 1999. But Trump’s financial struggles continued: his flagship companies declared bankruptcy in both 2004 and 2009, with Trump resigning from his position as head of the board of Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009.

Compounding Trump’s financial problems was the Wall Street stigma his business failures attracted. The Guardian has reported that, in the 1990s, “Wall Street banks, which had previously extended him credit, turned off the tap.” According to The New York Times, bankers went so far as to coin the phrase “the Donald risk” to describe the widespread aversion to lending to Trump. In 2013, one banker told The Atlantic, “If a major institution in New York—whether it was a Chase or a Goldman or a law firm or something—wanted to have a building built . . . I can give you almost 100 percent assurance that Donald would not be on the list.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THE RUSSIAN-FUELED COMEBACK

So how, then, did 15 Trump-branded projects break ground between 1998 and 2012?

Given that Trump has defied decades of political tradition by assiduously refusing to release his tax returns, it’s difficult to truly get to the bottom of his finances. But the public record is more than enough to demonstrate that the answer, in part, lies with Russia.

With the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998, Russian oligarchs who had made their fortunes buying up formerly state-held assets now sought to stash their money in international real estate. The Trump Organization offered an appealing haven for several reasons, ranging from its ostentatious gold-plated aesthetic to its reputation for lax reporting standards. As a result, several Trump-branded projects from 1998 onward received significant financing from sources with ties to Russia, most notably the Bayrock Group, a real estate company headquartered in Trump Tower and founded by the Kazakhstan-born former Soviet official Tevfik Arif, and Deutsche Bank, one of the few major financial institutions to still lend to Trump and which paid $630 million in penalties in 2017 for involvement in a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme.

Russia also provided many of the buyers for Trump-branded real estate. According to a Bloomberg investigation into Trump World Tower, which broke ground in 1998, “a third of units sold on floors 76 through 83 by 2004 involved people or limited liability companies connected to Russia and neighboring states.” Reuters, meanwhile, has reported that “at least 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses have bought at least $98.4 million worth of property in seven Trump-branded luxury towers in southern Florida.”

And the Trump Organization reportedly welcomed the clientele. For example, a 2013 article in The Nation about the influx of Russian money in Miami real estate noted that Elena Baronoff, a Russian American socialite once described on the cover of a Russian magazine as “the Russian Hand of Donald Trump,” operated a real estate company out of the lobby of the city’s Trump International Beach Resort that catered to Eastern European buyers. The New Republic has also extensively documented how the Trump Organization actively sought Russian buyers, so much so that the area around Trump Sunny Isles in Florida became known as “Little Moscow.” Though these transactions are not inherently suspect, they demonstrate that the Trump Organization was sufficiently aware of its reliance on Russian money to actively cultivate relationships with Russian clients.

Some of the individual deals have attracted attention, most notably the Russian fertilizer magnate Dmitry Rybolovlev’s 2008 purchase of one of Trump’s mansions in Palm Beach. He paid a reported $95 million for it—$53 million more than Trump paid for it four years earlier. The transaction has received scrutiny from investigators, particularly because, though Trump justified the price increase by claiming he had “gutted the house” and spent $25 million on renovations, there were few apparent alterations. Such rapid and unexplained increases in price are frequently cited as red flags for money laundering through real estate. According to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the transaction is one of several special counsel Robert Mueller and his team are investigating for “potential money laundering or other illicit financial dealings between the president, his associates, and Russia.” Rybolovlev drew additional attention for his behavior during the final months of the 2016 election, during which his private plane was spotted on separate days in Las Vegas and Charlotte within hours of Trump’s arrival in each city. A spokesman for Rybolovlev dismissed the incidents as a coincidence, and Trump has denied meeting Rybolovlev; a White House official described questions about their relationship as a conspiracy theory. In November 2018, Rybolovlev was arrested in Monaco on apparently unrelated charges of corruption, to which he pleaded not guilty.

Trump SoHo, which broke ground in 2007, typifies how the Trump Organization benefited from financing coming out of Russia and the former Soviet Union. Much of the project’s financing came from the Bayrock Group. Several reported funders of the project, including Arif, Tamir Sapir, and Alexander Mashkevich, hail from the former Soviet Union and have reported ties to the current Kremlin. Some have also faced allegations of corrupt and criminal behavior, ranging from money laundering to smuggling to involvement in a prostitution ring. For example, in 2009, Sapir pleaded guilty to illegally importing animal parts. Mashkevich has been repeatedly accused of bribery and money laundering on projects in Kazakhstan, and settled a case in 1996 without admitting guilt. The same can be said for some of the property’s clientele. For example, Viktor Khrapunov, who formerly served as mayor of Almaty, Kazakhstan, went on trial in July 2018 for allegedly purchasing condominiums in the building using money stolen from state coffers and laundered through a network of offshore shell companies while serving as the country’s energy minister. As of this writing, the case is ongoing, and Khrapunov has denied any wrongdoing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.

Mueller's report made it clear that there was "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy" (quote from the report).

Mueller was prohibited by DOJ rules from indicting Trump.


It was his responsibility to determine, and so state, if there was sufficient evidence to do so. Otherwise there was no reason for his investigation. It was not meant to be evidence gathering for Congress. Congress doesn't need his investigation for that. It does its own gathering and it can impeach for any reason it chooses if it has the votes to do so.

It was his responsibility to determine, and so state, if there was sufficient evidence to do so. Otherwise there was no reason for his investigation. It was not meant to be evidence gathering for Congress. Congress doesn't need his investigation for that. It does its own gathering and it can impeach for any reason it chooses if it has the votes to do so.

Just keep supporting Putin’s Puppet

Successful obstruction leads to insufficient evidence.

Mueller’s report suggests his obstruction of justice investigation was heavily informed by an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted – a conclusion Mueller’s team accepted.

“And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” Mueller’s team wrote.

That decision, though, seemed to leave investigators in a strange spot. Mueller’s team wrote that they “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong – deciding, essentially, that they wouldn’t decide.

“Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against determining ‘that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.’ ”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd rather Bill Clinton lie about oral sex 1,000 times than Trump sell out America's national security for illegal election assistance even once, how about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

About me? I don't subscribe to your opinion that Trump sold out our national security. It certainly hasn't been proven so. Actually, it appears to me that he has, and is further trying, to bolster national security with his border policies, strengthening our military, placing more financial responsibility on the EU for its own protection instead of merely draining our resources, attempting to create more equitable trade policies which also entail more protection of our intellectual properties from Chinese forms of theft, trying harder than past presidents to prohibit NK's drive to become a nuclear threat as well as ergo Iran's, assisting Eastern Europe's protection, and unleashing our own economic potential with tax and deregulation policies.

Ultimately, for me, it's not about Clinton or Trump. It's about who is most willing to protect our national sovereignty. Who is least likely to continue the destruction of our constitutional system. Who is most likely to preserve our uniquely American values, our American notion of individual liberty, our notion of unalienable rights, and who is most likely not to lead us into what I consider irrational notions of what and who we are as human beings.

All that requires paying attention to more than the personalities of the President. All of that requires that the body politic, our citizens, are clearly aware of those basic, fundamental issues, rather than being distracted by surface likes or dislikes, current fads and fancies, fetishistic devotion to individual and group differences promoting each of them to an icon of unalienable behavior which must be granted the legal permission to require the rest of us to serve them as they wish.

It requires that, at core, we all have a principle that unites us. Not a person, not a savior . . . a principle. The who that is ultimately responsible is not Clinton or Trump. The who is us. We may be divided into various factions, but the clusters of factions that merge into the two main adversaries are those who desire the sovereign, bottom up, constitutional system on which we were founded, and those who want a global union based on top down Progressive, socialist, communist views that we are best served by a basically all-powerful governing bureaucracy.

Frankly, this politically biased debating on what a horrible person Trump is, or, for that matter who Clinton or any other flawed human acting as a politician is, devolves into sickening hate rants. They are tiresome, boring, destructive, and off the mark. They don't discuss the proverbial heart of the matter.

Frankly, I don't want to participate in irrational character assassinations. It is stupid, non-productive, nauseating.

I would rather discuss things that matter. If you want to have a civilized discussion on the nature of government and which type you prefer and why, I'm in.

And when I vote, I will do so on the basis of what is the most likely choice available that most possibly will maintain what we have left of the Constitutional American Republic.

Regardless of whose pussies the candidate has touched.

Good luck with the chosen one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's daughter works at the WH
Her husband works at the WH
Rudy's son works at the WH
Barr's son in law works at the WH
Barr's daughter works at Treasury
Trumps sons do foreign business
His daughter is getting Chinese patents and Saudi grants
But sure let's talk about Biden
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The central fact is this: the President corruptly abused his office to coerce a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election. His White House then tried to cover this up and got caught. That's the story.

The fact is there is more evidence connecting Jim Jordan to the Ohio State sex scandal than there is evidence connecting Joe Biden to any Ukraine scandal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't watch TV, but I saw this guy on a Fox youtube video covering the various questions re the whistleblower stuff, including, for example, the notion of Trump withholding Ukraine aid before the phone call. It's almost 17 minutes, so not too long. And a VERY interesting analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUCaOOfYA08