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

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

And I bet you typed that with a straight face too.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Asking Ukraine to investigate various things including the Bidens that went on around the 2016 election is not abuse of power unless it can be shown he did it only to improve his chances for reelection. No evidence has been presented to that effect, so there is no legitimate charge of abuse of power. Asserting executive privilege is not an impeachable offense and so the second charge of obstructing Congress is not a legitimate charge.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Your imagination precedes you.

Hunter Biden was the funnel to Bidens wallet. Joe gained his wealth because of being VP

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

And I bet you typed that with a straight face too.

Why not? Those are the facts.

 

[forkup]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

We all knew that those 10 different Benghazi investigations were gonna end with acquittal and complete exoneration....but we still called in Hillary and others to testify for hours....

Oh......did you think there wasn't going to be an exoneration??

 

[forkup]

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.

I sound like someone who has principles that transcend partisanship. If anyone on the Democratic side pulled this shit I would support impeachment. When Clinton's investigation was reopened I was on this board supporting that decision and that was for something that Trump has done dozens of times by now.

In the end, I don't care all that much if a Democrat wins or a Republican. Although obviously I prefer Democrats. The US was set up to change it's ideology peacefully every few years.

This, however, is about something else. This simply is about how much power a president has and if laws apply to him. As I see it, what the GOP is doing now is simply stating they don't and his power is anything he chooses it to be. That's not Democracy that is Autocracy.

Being on this forum now for years I've seen the opinion on it gradually shift towards Autocracy by people on the right. You might be comfortable with a one-party system I am not.

 

[forkup]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?

 

[forkup]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Trump didn't assert executive privilege. He asserted on camera that he would simply withhold everything they asked for including testimony. After he himself didn't assert it on the summary of the phone call. That is not how executive privilege works even if he did claim it.

As for the rest. The good thing about Trump is that he says the silent part out loud. His intent as to why he asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's and crowdstrike has been made sufficiently clear by testimony and actions within the administration to make it clear beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If this was a criminal and not impeachment trail I don't think securing a conviction would be a problem on abuse of power. Maybe a bit trickier on obstruction since that is mostly an untested legal issue but I'dd still be more comfortable as a prosecutor there.

 

[IM2]

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.

I sound like someone who has principles that transcend partisanship. If anyone on the Democratic side pulled this shit I would support impeachment. When Clinton's investigation was reopened I was on this board supporting that decision and that was for something that Trump has done dozens of times by now.

In the end, I don't care all that much if a Democrat wins or a Republican. Although obviously I prefer Democrats. The US was set up to change it's ideology peacefully every few years.

This, however, is about something else. This simply is about how much power a president has and if laws apply to him. As I see it, what the GOP is doing now is simply stating they don't and his power is anything he chooses it to be. That's not Democracy that is Autocracy.

Being on this forum now for years I've seen the opinion on it gradually shift towards Autocracy by people on the right. You might be comfortable with a one-party system I am not.

AMEN!

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?

Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.

 

[IM2]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Bullshit.

 

[IM2]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?

Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.

Plenty of evidence exists that shows abuse of power.

 

[depotoo]

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.

lol A truly desperate wish. As this trial has proceeded, Trump's job approval ratings have gone up everyday to near his highest ratings since taking office, making it clear that very few people are taking this nonsense seriously. It is the Democrats who will pay a price in November for wasting the nation's time with this farce.

Is that what they are saying inside your little bubble?

That's what they are saying everywhere, and that's why Trump's job approval ratings continue to go up as the trial proceeds.

A poll that showed a 10% error rate, and did not state how many of each party and independents were polled. No.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Trump didn't assert executive privilege. He asserted on camera that he would simply withhold everything they asked for including testimony. After he himself didn't assert it on the summary of the phone call. That is not how executive privilege works even if he did claim it.

As for the rest. The good thing about Trump is that he says the silent part out loud. His intent as to why he asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's and crowdstrike has been made sufficiently clear by testimony and actions within the administration to make it clear beyond a REASONABLE doubt. If this was a criminal and not impeachment trail I don't think securing a conviction would be a problem on abuse of power. Maybe a bit trickier on obstruction since that is mostly an untested legal issue but I'dd still be more comfortable as a prosecutor there.

In fact, Trump did assert executive privilege regarding testimony and documents the Democrats wanted and the proper way for the Democrats to have proceeded would have been to go to court and demand the documents and testimony and not to level the made up charge of obstructing Congress. While you may believe Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, no evidence has been presented to support that belief, which means no evidence has been presented to support the charge of abuse of power.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

You don't want Joe Biden to testify because he would have no other choice but to throw Obama under the bus!

Anything Joe Biden did was with the approval of Obama...

 

[yidnar]

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.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.

the dems have called 17 witnesses how many more do yall want 18 20 100 the point is you have no concrete evidence all you have is hearsay and opinions [funny how the whistle blower rules were changed to allow hearsay before the whistle blower spouted his bull ]. and even if the POTUS entertained the idea of delaying money to Ukraine until possible corruption was looked into thats within his authority ! if you thin k 10s of millions of Americans that voted for Trump would accept a removal on these thin bull crap grounds you are mistaken .. the house builds the case and then when they are done they deliver the case to the senate [remember the solemn procession by the crooks with the stacks of lies being wheeled over to the senate] ..... they had their chance to build a case ... if they thought the case was weak [which it most definitely is ] they should have continued building on it in the house impeachment hearing instead of sitting on it for nearly a month before sending it to the senate ... now its time for the senate to rule on the case they have built ! and any republican that votes to extend this crap over hearsay and rumors may be voted out and replaced by another republican in their primary ...and they know it !

 

[forkup]

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.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.

By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.

No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.

Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?

Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.

What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.

Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.

What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.

 

[yidnar]

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.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.

the dems have called 17 witnesses how many more do yall want 18 20 100 the point is you have no concrete evidence all you have is hearsay and opinions [funny how the whistle blower rules were changed to allow hearsay before the whistle blower spouted his bull ]. and even if the POTUS entertained the idea of delaying money to Ukraine until possible corruption was looked into thats within his authority ! if you thin k 10s of millions of Americans that voted for Trump would accept a removal on these thin bull crap grounds you are mistaken .. the house builds the case and then when they are done they deliver the case to the senate [remember the solemn procession by the crooks with the stacks of lies being wheeled over to the senate] ..... they had their chance to build a case ... if they thought the case was weak [which it most definitely is ] they should have continued building on it in the house impeachment hearing instead of sitting on it for nearly a month before sending it to the senate ... now itstime for the senate to rule on the case they have built ! and any republican that votes to extend this crap over hearsay and rumors may be voted out and replaced by another republican in their primary ...and they know it !

but you know what ..i would love to see Biden testify ...maybe not as much as Sanders would like to see him testify though . face it its over for the left in 2020.