Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

 

[Andylusion]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Hm..... I don't think you can do that, because Clinton directly threatened and coached witnesses, and concealed evidence.

You can't tell me Trump should be impeached for not being helpful to the investigation, when Clinton did all the same things and more. This guy said stuff like "Depends on how you define 'is'".

Look, you either have a standard, and you need to follow it yourself first.... or stop preaching so much.

I'd be glad to respond if you could just substantiate anything you wrote.

This is common knowledge. Go read the Star Report from the 90s.



Lying under oath, isn't even debatable. So, don't want to hear it about Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

It matters what the intent was.
The intent was clear in the testimony.

History has already marked you as a fool.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Right, because Trump planned that his conversation with Sondland would be public in the near future, that's why he said it.

Yes, Trump did withhold funds, just like the many Presidents before him including Hussein.
You won't find the word "investigation" once in that phone transcript.
Yes, Trump put Rudy in charge, but not to make decisions for him in regards to policy.
Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

Yes, Trump did withhold funds,

Yes, he wanted an announcement. That's an impeachable offense?

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

You were just arguing that there was no QPQ because Trump said so.
Now it's, there was but... meh....so what?

He got nothing in return because he was caught.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other people.

He got nothing in return because he didn't ask for anything in return. Again....you're talking about assumptions of other

He didn't?

Then why withhold the aid?
And....
Why was Rudy pushing for investigations then?

You're the one ignoring their actions in favor of your own assumptions. The testimony was clear.

/—-/ Trump did not withhold aid. Obozo withheld aid for 8 years. Trump delivered, Obozo skated.

 

[JoeMoma]

Damn! It seems to me that Presidents should stop talking to foreign leaders, because if the president makes any suggestion that could be construed to help him against a political opponent, he can be impeached and then removed from office. It would be interesting to look at conversations previous presidents had with other foreign leaders just to count the impeachable offenses that were made.

Of course, up until now, presidents could have confidential phone conversations with foreign leaders without be being concerned with each word being put under the microscope so that the opposition party can do contortions looking for an impeachable offense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Damn! It seems to me that Presidents should stop talking to foreign leaders, because if the president makes any suggestion that could be construed to help him against a political opponent, he can be impeached and then removed from office. It would be interesting to look at conversations previous presidents had with other foreign leaders just to count the impeachable offenses that were made.

Of course, up until now, presidents could have confidential phone conversations with foreign leaders without be being concerned with each word being put under the microscope so that the opposition party can do contortions looking for an impeachable offense.

It would be fine if the deep state were not involved. In the past, foreign leaders had confidence in the US when it came to such discussions. The Democrats ruined that for us now, because that's what power means to them. They'd sell us out to Communist China if they could just to gain or maintain power. Party first--country second is their motto.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

It matters what the intent was.
The intent was clear in the testimony.

History has already marked you as a fool.

No, intent only matters to you commies when it suits your purpose.

Go out and get drunk one night, get in an accident on the way home, do you think the cop cares why you got drunk and tried to drive home? You broke the law no matter what the reason. Same for robbing a bank. Nobody cares why you robbed the bank, you robbed the bank and it's against the law.

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[berg80]

How do Senate Repubs rationalize acquitting on obstruction?

House Democrats’ impeachment report accuses Trump of obstruction, other misconduct
House Democrats' impeachment report accuses Trump of obstruction, other misconduct

"Democrats on Tuesday publicly released a new report accusing President Donald Trump of soliciting Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for his benefit and obstructing the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives.

The 300-page report alleges that, “In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, of politically-motivated investigations” into former Vice President Joe Biden, currently a top presidential candidate, and his son Hunter.

“In pressuring President Zelensky to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine,” the report says."
........................................................................................................
The obstruction charge is a slam dunk.

 

[berg80]

One of the main themes of the House report is how Trump directed his subordinates to work with Giuliani in carrying out the illegal extortion scheme.

 

[berg80]

That's a QPQ, dope.

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

OK, have it your way. It was extortion.

 

[g5000]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

I think on the question of obstruction, Trump can make a case of executive privilege when it comes to the extortion scheme he tried to pull on the Ukrainians. Whether or not he is being disingenuous about his reasons for withholding key documents and personnel is for each person to decide.

However, I have read the Mueller report, and the case for obstruction is much, much stronger there.

Trump did not want it proven that Putin helped him get elected, and he obstructed Mueller as much as possible to prevent that proof from getting out.

Trump has thrown up a lot of smoke about the "Russia collusion hoax" to cover up that fact as well. He deliberately conflates the collusion investigation with the Russian interference investigation.

And the rube herd obediently and blindly goes along.

 

[The Original Tree]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Committees have no power over The Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is a CO-Equal Branch of Government with Congress. Not with The House of Reps, Not with a Committee, but with The Bicameral Houses of Congress.

The Executive Branch does not have to comply with anything any so called committee demands of them.

To illustrate this, can Nancy Pelosi demand that President Trump Address The House of Representatives? Can any Committee Order The President to do that?

 

[The Original Tree]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

I think on the question of obstruction, Trump can make a case of executive privilege when it comes to the extortion scheme he tried to pull on the Ukrainians. Whether or not he is being disingenuous about his reasons for withholding key documents and personnel is for each person to decide.

However, I have read the Mueller report, and the case for obstruction is much, much stronger there.

Trump did not want it proven that Putin helped him get elected, and he obstructed Mueller as much as possible to prevent that proof from getting out.

Trump has thrown up a lot of smoke about the "Russia collusion hoax" to cover up that fact as well. He deliberately conflates the collusion investigation with the Russian interference investigation.

And the rube herd obediently and blindly goes along.

You are a LIAR and MUELLER called YOU A LIAR.
Mueller lied repeatedly btw, until he was called in front of the cameras where he was forced to tell the truth.

Watch Mueler's Body Language when he lies or evades, stammers fumbles for answers and tries to manufacture answers to cover his lies.

MUELLER HIMSELF SAID NO ONE AND NOTHING IMPEDED OR OBSTRUCTED HIS INVESTIGATION.



WATCH: Rep. Michael Turner’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony









MUELLER HEARINGS: Rep. Doug Collins questions Robert Mueller about collusion and conspiracy

 

[berg80]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

I think on the question of obstruction, Trump can make a case of executive privilege when it comes to the extortion scheme he tried to pull on the Ukrainians. Whether or not he is being disingenuous about his reasons for withholding key documents and personnel is for each person to decide.

However, I have read the Mueller report, and the case for obstruction is much, much stronger there.

Trump did not want it proven that Putin helped him get elected, and he obstructed Mueller as much as possible to prevent that proof from getting out.

Trump has thrown up a lot of smoke about the "Russia collusion hoax" to cover up that fact as well. He deliberately conflates the collusion investigation with the Russian interference investigation.

And the rube herd obediently and blindly goes along.

Of course, all prez's have the right to invoke EP when it is merited. But the instances in which it is defensible are well defined and relatively narrow. Trump's assertion of blanket privilege has already been struck down in the lower courts on solid constitutional grounds. His assertion of blanket privilege will also be ruled against as even a SC stacked with right wing ideologues can not ignore precedent established during Nixon's impeachment.

 

[The Original Tree]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

I think on the question of obstruction, Trump can make a case of executive privilege when it comes to the extortion scheme he tried to pull on the Ukrainians. Whether or not he is being disingenuous about his reasons for withholding key documents and personnel is for each person to decide.

However, I have read the Mueller report, and the case for obstruction is much, much stronger there.

Trump did not want it proven that Putin helped him get elected, and he obstructed Mueller as much as possible to prevent that proof from getting out.

Trump has thrown up a lot of smoke about the "Russia collusion hoax" to cover up that fact as well. He deliberately conflates the collusion investigation with the Russian interference investigation.

And the rube herd obediently and blindly goes along.

Of course, all prez's have the right to invoke EP when it is merited. But the instances in which it is defensible are well defined and relatively narrow. Trump's assertion of blanket privilege has already been struck down in the lower courts on solid constitutional grounds. His assertion of blanket privilege will also be ruled against as even a SC stacked with right wing ideologues can not ignore precedent established during Nixon's impeachment.

I hope you didn't pay for a college degree, because you should get a refund.
The left trying to establish new precedents when judge shopping to undermine The Executive Branch's Executive Privilege will all eventually be played out and end up in SCOTUS where the eyes of history will be watching, and they will rule in favor of The Rule of Law, and Separation of Powers.

What are you going to do, take the SS Stormtroopers like ANTIFA or something and March to The White House and demand that The Executive Branch revoke their right to Executive Privilege?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is? So what did Trump get in return?

Quid pro quo's are not illegal, nor an impeachable offense even if that's what Trump wanted. Remember the last guy that used a quid pro quo? He's running for the Democrat nomination today.

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

OK, have it your way. It was extortion.

Very well, so what will Schiff Face do about Biden then? After all, he currently is the front runner. It would be criminal to allow him to run for President while impeaching a sitting President that did the same thing as Biden did.

 

[berg80]

A bank robbery doesn't need to be successful to be illegal. Neither does extortion of a foreign country.

If that's your definition of extortion, then please riddle me this: Is Joe Biden guilty of extortion, yes or no?

Of course not.
Bribery and extortion require corrupt intent.

No, it doesn't matter what the situation was. The act is either extortion or it's not.

OK, have it your way. It was extortion.

Very well, so what will Schiff Face do about Biden then? After all, he currently is the front runner. It would be criminal to allow him to run for President while impeaching a sitting President that did the same thing as Biden did.

I'd agree with you..............but as you know Biden didn't do anything close to what Trump did, so............

 

[berg80]

Rather than Senate Repubs, allow me to ask Trump supporters a question. Is not impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice worth giving future presidents the absolute power to ignore any congressional investigation they choose to ignore? This, by using the precedent that will be set of the president getting to decide what information he/she will disclose to Congress and what he/she will withhold?

 

[Lesh]

Rather than Senate Repubs, allow me to ask Trump supporters a question. Is not impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice worth giving future presidents the absolute power to ignore any congressional investigation they choose to ignore? This, by using the precedent that will be set of the president getting to decide what information he/she will disclose to Congress and what he/she will withhold?

They will of course simply reverse course as they always do

 

[berg80]

Damn! It seems to me that Presidents should stop talking to foreign leaders, because if the president makes any suggestion that could be construed to help him against a political opponent, he can be impeached and then removed from office.

Two things about that. 1. No one needs to construe anything. The transcript lays it out in black and white. 2. Any prez who asks for the kind of help Trump asked for from a foreign leader, extortion or not, deserves to be impeached.