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

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

No, it is not bullshit...

Obstruction of Congress could have been real had the House exhausted the courts first but seeing they did not you can not scream Obstruction of Congress...

Abuse of Power?

Oh hell yeah he has done it and will do it again, BUT Trump abuse of power is nothing new and many Presidents have done it since George Washington day...

So the Democrats rushed and thought the American public would fall for this and yet your side is failing to make the case...

Just remember when the GOP does this you were for it before you were against it...

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?

 

[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.

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...

Yea, he pressured for the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor because Obama wanted it done...the IMF wanted it done...Congress wanted it done....the EU wanted it done...and a host of others wanted it done....

Trump wanted an ANNOUNCEMENT about a Biden investigation for his own personal benefit....and no matter how much you vicariously live thru Trump -- that doesn't make you Trump...

And no matter how much your sycophancy leads you to believe Trump is America -- he isn't

 

[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.

/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.

Shouldn't you also want Trump's DOJ to indict Hunter and Joe Biden?? If it is so obvious they are corrupt -- why haven't they been indicted??

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.

 

[yidnar]

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.

and there you have it no investigation was conducted ..... but one will be now ! the American people are sick and tired of the good ole boy system of skimming millions off of billions in tax payer money ! thats one of the things Trump ran on ! and the crooks are screaming [big surprise ] about it !........... drain the swamp !

 

[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...

Yea, he pressured for the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor because Obama wanted it done...the IMF wanted it done...Congress wanted it done....the EU wanted it done...and a host of others wanted it done....

Trump wanted an ANNOUNCEMENT about a Biden investigation for his own personal benefit....and no matter how much you vicariously live thru Trump -- that doesn't make you Trump...

And no matter how much your sycophancy leads you to believe Trump is America -- he isn't

Feel free at any time to quote me to where I believe Trump is America or I want to be like or live like Trump?

Maybe that is your damn wish to be a conman that sired a daughter out of wedlock, married three times and is the tabloid King but that is not my life nor do I want it, so do me a favor and stop with the damn lying!

Also you did not address the mere fact Schiff stated this impeachment is about the 2020 election, so let cut the nonsense!

Democrats failed with their Obstruction of Congress because they did not exhaust the courts and Abuse of Power, well your boy Obama was attacking countries like Yemen with drones and we were never at war with Yemen, so you should ask yourself why do you love abuse of power when a Black man does it but hate it when a white man does it?

 

[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.

/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.

Shouldn't you also want Trump's DOJ to indict Hunter and Joe Biden?? If it is so obvious they are corrupt -- why haven't they been indicted??

Same reason why Hillary was not... Political Theater!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.

And if it gets contested in court -- Trump will lose....

OR....

If it is so obvious that Bolton is lying -- let him testify under oath and convict on perjury.....if he is lying...

but Trump knows Bolton isn't lying....which is why he is so triggered

Even Trump's former chief of Staff believes Bolton more than Trump....why? Is Kelly a deep state plant controlled by Obama too?

John Kelly, ex-WH chief of staff, says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation - CNNPolitics

 

[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.

/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.

Shouldn't you also want Trump's DOJ to indict Hunter and Joe Biden?? If it is so obvious they are corrupt -- why haven't they been indicted??

Same reason why Hillary was not... Political Theater!

So Trump is engaging in political theater by not "locking her up" like he had all you morons chanting??

Cool.

Could he at least gotten an indictment or 2?? At least get her personal lawyer indicted or something

 

[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.

/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.

Shouldn't you also want Trump's DOJ to indict Hunter and Joe Biden?? If it is so obvious they are corrupt -- why haven't they been indicted??

Same reason why Hillary was not... Political Theater!

So Trump is engaging in political theater by not "locking her up" like he had all you morons chanting??

Cool.

Could he at least gotten an indictment or 2?? At least get her personal lawyer indicted or something

Another lie by you!

Please feel free to show where I ever said Hillary Clinton should be locked up and if not note I have caught you in two lies now!

Hillary Clinton just like Joe Biden will never see a day in Prison and neither will Hunter Biden or Donald Trump.

Now get busy linking where I want to be like Trump and I wanted Hillary locked up and I voted for Gary Johnson back in 2016 and if Bloomberg is not the Democratic Nominee I will vote third party again!

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.

And if it gets contested in court -- Trump will lose....

OR....

If it is so obvious that Bolton is lying -- let him testify under oath and convict on perjury.....if he is lying...

but Trump knows Bolton isn't lying....which is why he is so triggered

Even Trump's former chief of Staff believes Bolton more than Trump....why? Is Kelly a deep state plant controlled by Obama too?

John Kelly, ex-WH chief of staff, says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation - CNNPolitics

Since we all know that the President will be acquitted regardless of what Bolton may have said in his book, having him testify serves no legitimate purpose; in fact calling any witnesses serves no legitimate purpose.

 

[forkup]

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.

And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?

Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.

The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.

None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.

Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is .

 

[forkup]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.

And if it gets contested in court -- Trump will lose....

OR....

If it is so obvious that Bolton is lying -- let him testify under oath and convict on perjury.....if he is lying...

but Trump knows Bolton isn't lying....which is why he is so triggered

Even Trump's former chief of Staff believes Bolton more than Trump....why? Is Kelly a deep state plant controlled by Obama too?

John Kelly, ex-WH chief of staff, says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation - CNNPolitics

Since we all know that the President will be acquitted regardless of what Bolton may have said in his book, having him testify serves no legitimate purpose; in fact calling any witnesses serves no legitimate purpose.

Here you are with that fallacious argument again? At least have the decency to wait until your sure I'm AFK

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?

Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.

The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.

None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.

Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....

Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’

In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.

And if it gets contested in court -- Trump will lose....

OR....

If it is so obvious that Bolton is lying -- let him testify under oath and convict on perjury.....if he is lying...

but Trump knows Bolton isn't lying....which is why he is so triggered

Even Trump's former chief of Staff believes Bolton more than Trump....why? Is Kelly a deep state plant controlled by Obama too?

John Kelly, ex-WH chief of staff, says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation - CNNPolitics

Since we all know that the President will be acquitted regardless of what Bolton may have said in his book, having him testify serves no legitimate purpose; in fact calling any witnesses serves no legitimate purpose.

Since you already know in the face of evidence, you will still bitch out and say "doesn't matter because my daddy will be acquitted" -- then why do you gaslight people for hours demanding evidence be shown to you??

Is this some feminine trait of yours?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?

Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.

The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.

None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.

Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.

But we know that Joe Biden and Hunter are guilty of something.....

And its up to them to come testify and prove their innocence, right?

 

[jknowgood]

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.

I don't care if republicans go down also, I'm not a partisan prick. Like yourself, I want corruption out of our government.