You really don't want Biden to testify...

[CrusaderFrank]

The same corrupt Ukrainian government asked Vindman muliple times to be their SecDef, he's your Star witness and he likely replied that he could help corrupt Ukraine more and do more damage to the USA right where he was. He's a spy and a genuine traitor on par with the Rosenbergs

Wow, you have a vivid imagination....

Vindman is a highly decorated Army officer. What do you have?

Benedict Arnold was more highly decorated.

Trump has to put a stop to traitors taking countless shots at him because they fear no reprisal

Vindman is a traitor and likely a spy as well

 

[forkup]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.

Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.

You think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.

 

[DBA]

Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.

"I overheard Trump yelling coming through a cellphone in a crowded restaurant" is the opposite of evidence

Witnessing something has evidentiary value. It is direct evidence.

Yet what Bolton is alleged to have heard from Trump will not change the outcome of the trial, so it is of no legitimate value.

It is of legitimate value to sane American citizens and it's going to bitch slap trump in the fall campaign.

Boy are you going to be disappointed. Americans aren't dumbed down quite enough yet to elect one of the wackadoos on the left. Sadly, a few more years of indoctrination and illegal immigration may do the trick.

 

[JoeB131]

Their evidence is not sufficient. If an ambulance chaser lawyer files a frivolous suit, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine that he/she is not wasting their time calling witnesses. That is exactly what is happening here. The House is the equivalent of a bunch of ambulance chasers.

Only if nothing actually happened.

We know something happened here. More to the point, we know Trump is hiding things.

 

[DBA]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.

Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.

You think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.

But you must present sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They have not. It is very simple. They have no FACTS, just speculation.

 

[forkup]

Their evidence is not sufficient. If an ambulance chaser lawyer files a frivolous suit, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine that he/she is not wasting their time calling witnesses. That is exactly what is happening here. The House is the equivalent of a bunch of ambulance chasers.

Only if nothing actually happened.

We know something happened here. More to the point, we know Trump is hiding things.

We actually know what he is hiding. The fight is more about having it confirmed under oath before the senate so they will be forced to be intellectually honest.

 

[JoeB131]

Benedict Arnold was more highly decorated.

Trump has to put a stop to traitors taking countless shots at him because they fear no reprisal

Vindman is a traitor and likely a spy as well

Yawn, guy. If the professionals in the Military, Intelligence and Diplomatic community are all screaming about Trump, they know something is pretty wrong here.

The problem with you guys is that you put this guy in there knowing he was unfit for office, never expected him to win on a technicality, and now you just can't admit you made a mistake.

You'd probably get more done with Pence in the White House, because Pence, while he might be a misogynistic religious kook, is actually disciplined and knows how the system works.

But you'd have to admit you made a mistake... and your pride won't allow that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, they don't take the Democrats seriously.

No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.

No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.

Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?

What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.

Does that work for everything? Let's say the president shoots his political rival. If the GOP pledges to not convict him when he is impeached the Democrats should not even try? Trying, constitutes a breach in public trust?

lol You get more and more stupid as the discussion continues. If a president shoots some one he has committed a crime and will not only be removed from office but also tried in a criminal court. Of course, nothing of this sort has been alleged in this case. In this case the two articles of impeachment are made up offenses and serve only as pretexts for campaigning against the President.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Benedict Arnold was more highly decorated.

Trump has to put a stop to traitors taking countless shots at him because they fear no reprisal

Vindman is a traitor and likely a spy as well

Yawn, guy. If the professionals in the Military, Intelligence and Diplomatic community are all screaming about Trump, they know something is pretty wrong here.

The problem with you guys is that you put this guy in there knowing he was unfit for office, never expected him to win on a technicality, and now you just can't admit you made a mistake.

You'd probably get more done with Pence in the White House, because Pence, while he might be a misogynistic religious kook, is actually disciplined and knows how the system works.

But you'd have to admit you made a mistake... and your pride won't allow that.

Hopefully Trump makes an example of Comey and Vindman, we'll see

 

[JoeB131]

Boy are you going to be disappointed. Americans aren't dumbed down quite enough yet to elect one of the wackadoos on the left. Sadly, a few more years of indoctrination and illegal immigration may do the trick.

TRump is losing to Biden, Sanders, Warren and even Buttigeig...

And that's before the recession kicks in.

 

[DBA]

Their evidence is not sufficient. If an ambulance chaser lawyer files a frivolous suit, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine that he/she is not wasting their time calling witnesses. That is exactly what is happening here. The House is the equivalent of a bunch of ambulance chasers.

Only if nothing actually happened.

We know something happened here. More to the point, we know Trump is hiding things.

No we don't. Nothing did happen here that hasn't happened under every single President in our lifetime. There was not Quid Pro Quo. There can't be if the party that is victim of the bribery don't even know they were being bribed. That is nonsense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No matter how this comes out, get ready for some really wild "Hear, Hold My Beer" moments from Rump.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Are you trying to sound stupid? We have all known from the beginning of the impeachment process that there was no chance President Trump would be convicted and the whole purpose of the impeachment process and trial was political and not legal.

You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?

There is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.

Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.

The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.

Never said they are required to vote for conviction. I said that saying you will not convict before the trail has even started betrays their oath.

Everyone knew from the beginning of the impeachment process that the Democrats would vote for impeachment regardless of what the charges or evidence was and the Republicans would vote against it.

 

[JoeB131]

No we don't. Nothing did happen here that hasn't happened under every single President in our lifetime. There was not Quid Pro Quo. There can't be if the party that is victim of the bribery don't even know they were being bribed. That is nonsense.

I'm sorry, I missed where Obama tried to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney... can you point out where that was done.

I missed where Dubya Bush went to Vietnam to get an investigation into Kerry's Purple Hearts.

No, this is not normal or right... that's why the professionals in Washington are screaming about it.

 

[forkup]

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.

Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.

You think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.

But you must present sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They do not. It is very simple. They have no FACTS, just speculation.

They have a summary of the call where the president flat out asks to investigate his political rival and some conspiracy theory long since debunked. We have multiple administration officials attesting that the aid to Ukraine was withheld. We have Trump on camera admitting he asked he Ukrainians and China to investigate the Bidens. we have Mullvany confirming the aid was withheld. We have the ambassador to Europe saying under oath he communicated to the Ukrainians that the aid and a meeting with Trump were conditional on the investigations. Probably forgot a few

When you say no facts, what facts are missing in your opinion?

 

[forkup]

You just can't stop saying you don't like the constitution if it doesn't serve your party's interest can you?

There is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.

Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.

The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.

Never said they are required to vote for conviction. I said that saying you will not convict before the trail has even started betrays their oath.

Everyone knew from the beginning of the impeachment process that the Democrats would vote for impeachment regardless of what the charges or evidence was and the Republicans would vote against it.

Really? There are a few saying they are not convinced in the senate even now. Even in the house, it was not unanimous. So no we don't know. Nixon, as I said, had support days before he didn't.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.

Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.

You think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.

But you must present sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They do not. It is very simple. They have no FACTS, just speculation.

They have a summary of the call where the president flat out asks to investigate his political rival and some conspiracy theory long since debunked. We have multiple administration officials attesting that the aid to Ukraine was withheld. We have Trump on camera admitting he asked he Ukrainians and China to investigate the Bidens. we have Mullvany confirming the aid was withheld. We have the ambassador to Europe saying under oath he communicated to the Ukrainians that the aid and a meeting with Trump were conditional on the investigations. Probably forgot a few

When you say no facts, what facts are missing in your opinion?

None of this constitutes an abuse of power unless it can be shown that the President did these things only for the purpose of improving his chances for reelection, and no evidence has been presented to support this claim. The articles of impeachment simply have no legitimacy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.

Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Sure there is. The constitution is very relevant to this discussion. It shows that saying the trail was decided before it started is a breach of the oath they took. It describes what impeachment is and it's function. I would argue it's the most important thing in this discussion.

The trial was decided before it began and there is nothing in the oath of office that requires Republicans to vote for conviction when there is no basis for the impeachment.

Never said they are required to vote for conviction. I said that saying you will not convict before the trail has even started betrays their oath.

Everyone knew from the beginning of the impeachment process that the Democrats would vote for impeachment regardless of what the charges or evidence was and the Republicans would vote against it.

Really? There are a few saying they are not convinced in the senate even now. Even in the house, it was not unanimous. So no we don't know. Nixon, as I said, had support days before he didn't.

You sound like someone who buys a lot of lottery tickets. Twenty Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats to convict, and if you are not insane, you know this will never happen.

 

[forkup]

No, they don't take themselves seriously. If you swear an oath to do something without having the decency to even pretend you will take it seriously makes you a joke. It demeans the office you are holding. It is in itself perjury. And it shows that you consider the constitution as something you can toss aside.

No, they are treating the Democrats' phoney impeachment process with the contempt it deserves and that is doing their duty to their constituents. The Democrats, on the other hand, have been lying to the American people from the start.

Oh, what have they been lying about? What exactly in the articles of indictments is untrue and are you willing to back it up by anything but rhetoric?

What they have been lying about and what you are lying about is pretending there was a legitimate possibility that the President would be convicted and removed from office. Since that was never a possibility, the only purpose for this whole farce was political and that constitutes a betrayal of public trust.

Does that work for everything? Let's say the president shoots his political rival. If the GOP pledges to not convict him when he is impeached the Democrats should not even try? Trying, constitutes a breach in public trust?

lol You get more and more stupid as the discussion continues. If a president shoots some one he has committed a crime and will not only be removed from office but also tried in a criminal court. Of course, nothing of this sort has been alleged in this case. In this case the two articles of impeachment are made up offenses and serve only as pretexts for campaigning against the President.

Again what is made up. He didn't ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? He didn't ask an investigation into crowdstrike? He didn't order evidence to be withheld subpoened by the House? What exactly in the charges is false.

As to my argument being stupid, it is a reduction of the argument to it's extreme. Something that should be obvious. You claimed that impeachment is a function of certainty of conviction, and doing so without it is a breach of public trust. I showed it a bad argument.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I thank Quid Pro Joe everyday for exposing the democrat Money Laundering Operation!

Your imagination precedes you.

Imagine relatives with names like Biden, Pelosi and Kerry cashing checks from the Ukraine. Or, in your case, denying it.