2019 Trump impeachment documents declassified

[SeaMajor7]

Lower court Fake Judges like him do get their activism overturned and are humiliated.

Appeals Court Slaps Down Judge Boasberg's Targeting of Trump Admin, Citing 'A Clear Abuse of Discretion'​

He should be hanged from a light post.

 

[forkup]

It can't be repaired through normal legal channels
I have said that for some time.

Let's see. Michael Flynn charged under the same statute. Plead guilty. Remind me what his punishment is?

George Papadopoulos served ten days under that statute.

Does it occur to you that a single felony count under that statute for a first time offender has you know... certain sentencing guidelines?

Guidelines that might not result in being locked up and the key thrown away?

 

[Marener]

Let's see. Michael Flynn charged under the same statute. Plead guilty. Remind me what his punishment is?

George Papadopoulos served ten days under that statute.

Does it occur to you that a single felony count under that statute for a first time offender has you know... certain sentencing guidelines?

Guidelines that might not result in being locked up and the key thrown away?

That’s not really what he’s saying.

It can’t be punished through normal legal channels because normal legal channels conform to reality.

They’ve spent over a decade demanding their fantasies be prosecuted and have learned it can’t be done in a legal system that demands facts and evidence.

It’s a big reason why they support the authoritarian bend of Trump. Because reality is meaningless under an authoritarian.

 

[forkup]

That’s not really what he’s saying.

It can’t be punished through normal legal channels because normal legal channels conform to reality.

They’ve spent over a decade demanding their fantasies be prosecuted and have learned it can’t be done in a legal system that demands facts and evidence.

It’s a big reason why they support the authoritarian bend of Trump. Because reality is meaningless under an authoritarian.

I know that. It's toddlers trying to pretend they know quantum physics. But exposing that dychotomy is why I reply anyway.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

You mean the effort that was based on a phone call that Trump released himself right?

So what was the lie? You are the third person who started a thread on this I've seen. Nobody seems to be able to answer what exactly you are alleging or why what happened is part of some conspiracy.

It was a Democrat who accused Trump seems a rather thin accusation, considering nobody is actually denying that Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden.

So what was the lie,

You just posted the lie.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I love how Democrats re-write history. It's amusing except that today's college students will be learning and then teaching our children and grandchildren these bald-faced lies.

Many, many people denied that Trump tried to "blackmail" Ukraine. and still deny it because it was never true. You're smarter than this, forkup.

The hearing proved it. Every witness who actually talked to Trump said he insisted "no quid pro quo." The only people who testified about quid pro quo were people who hated Trump and claimed that "it was known" that he was asking for quid pro quo.

The phone call that had the Dems once again doing the this-time-we-finally-got-him dance again turned out to be completely appropriate. Dems counted on the call being classified to allow them to lie about it, but they forgot who determines classification.

90% of democrat voters don’t even know the meaning of “quid pro quo”.

 

[Lockback]

Winner gets to write history. You mad?

The irony of her making a "mentally disturbed" dig isn't lost on me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

90% of democrat voters don’t even know the meaning of “quid pro quo”.

Hey, I will tell you the meaning if you do something for me.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I read the transcript.

I think, making the shipment of weapons to an ally appropiated by congress contingent on an investigation into the son of your main political rival is pretty nefarious.

Ok, were talking about different calls. I thought you were referring to the other call

 

[ColonelAngus]

You ain’t gettin the BILLION DOLLARS!

Stop investigating corruption in Burisma, the corrupt company employing my corrupt son who then gives me money from the corruption.

Phucking Joe Biden.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's time to stop lying. The extortion was clear.

I think we’re talking about 2 different phone calls

 

[Seymour Flops]

I read the transcript.

I think, making the shipment of weapons to an ally appropiated by congress contingent on an investigation into the son of your main political rival is pretty nefarious.

Ohh I did not realize that Trump had done that!

Please provide a link and a quote of trump making the shipment continuant on an investigation into the son of joe biden.

 

[Marener]

Ohh I did not realize that Trump had done that!

Please provide a link and a quote of trump making the shipment continuant on an investigation into the son of joe biden.

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened

Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe there were two phone calls. There was only one. It was on Sept. 7, and it was highly incriminating.

www.justsecurity.org

In the face of this damning and conclusive evidence, the White House and House Republicans have been forced to retreat to their current defense: that President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened

Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe there were two phone calls. There was only one. It was on Sept. 7, and it was highly incriminating.

www.justsecurity.org

In the face of this damning and conclusive evidence, the White House and House Republicans have been forced to retreat to their current defense: that President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

Here is the only quote in your link in which Trump talks about quid pro quo:

Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine

"No quid pro quo." - Donald Trump

If you saw a quote in the call transcrpt of Trump demanding something in exchange for the aid to Ukraine, post it.

 

[westwall]

Damn. The Marxists spun a web of corruption DEEP.
We're fucked.

We're not fucked yet, but we're close.

 

[Marener]

Here is the only quote in your link in which Trump talks about quid pro quo:

Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine

"No quid pro quo." - Donald Trump

If you saw a quote in the call transcrpt of Trump demanding something in exchange for the aid to Ukraine, post it.

Trump often says one thing and does another.

Saying "no quid pro quo" is just covering his ass if he's still enforcing a quid pro quo which is substantiated by considerable evidence as already outlined.

There's never been a rational alternative explanation for the sudden hold on the foreign aid.

 

[Alicia J]

I agree. That has been the main problem with Democrats. They need to give Republicans what they dish out and be unapologetic about it.

Garland was always a horrible choice to be AG. Too scholarly, too mild-mannered, and way too cautious.

He should have been a law school professor or remained a judge. Anything but AG.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Garland was always a horrible choice to be AG. Too scholarly, too mild-mannered, and way too cautious.

He should have been a law school professor or remained a judge. Anything but AG.

Or Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Blaster]

Garland was always a horrible choice to be AG.

Yes

 

[Alicia J]

Yes

And you should be kissing his feet every day, since he did such a horrible job prosecuting Trump.