Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

 

[berg80]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election. Besides, Trump knows there was no wrongdoing. That's why he wanted so badly for Ukraine to announce they were launching an investigation. That alone was enough for Don to use it to smear Biden with...........which is really what he was after. What Don understands well is The Following will believe anything he says. Plus, he has an entire media cohort, most of all Faux Noise, to reinforce everything he says no matter how untruthful it is.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

No doubt the hypocrisy of Repubs is just stunning. There are no shortage of examples from Pompeo, Graham, Gowdy, Jordan, etc.
There's going to be a ruling on the McGahn case on Monday. I don't see how the court can rule he will not be compelled to testify unless the decision is left to Trump appointees. Once the ruling is made it gives the obstruction charge even more substantive legal backing. It is not disputable that Trump has obstructed a fully authorized impeachment inquiry...........just as Nixon did. It only takes one count of the articles of impeachment to pass to remove the prez. I don't see how the Repubs can vote against the charge of obstruction without twisting themselves in knots.

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

Because no one of sound mind will vote to impeach a president who simply refused to cooperate with an obvious scam, nor for "crimes" which arise from such refusal.

But that is the point. Alleging the inquiry is a scam is the expression of an opinion, not a legal argument. It's designed as a public relations campaign, but has no standing in law. Congress' right to conduct an impeachment inquiry is unassailable.

Everyone knows it's a scam, especially the Democrats. It's not alleged, it's a obvious fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans really are stupid, no other explanation. They let Hillary and Comey get walk.

James "Q" Comey gets a big hoot when we listen to him telling us about "the Plan"

Just hold your fire. Comey and Hillary will make great witnesses against Obama when they flip to save their own asses.

I said the Horowitz report was 50/50 between the military tribunals and "some people did something" Looks like "Some people did something"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election.

Nonsense. A candidate is not protected from criminal investigation by virtue of his candidacy.

 

[berg80]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Since Billy the Bagman will do whatever Trump says no matter how inappropriate, why didn't the Golfer-in-Chief tell Barr to investigate Hunter Biden?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

Hillary was not president and when it comes to "not producing the documents fast enough", she ******* bleach-bitted 33,000 emails. Yeah, we know, they were all about Chelsea's wedding and yoga lessons.

We can tell that Hillary does a lot of yoga

 

[berg80]

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election.

Nonsense. A candidate is not protected from criminal investigation by virtue of his candidacy.

The issue is that the investigation was being solicited by way of extorting Ukraine for the political benefit of Trump. That is a black letter violation of the law.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It should also be noted that when Mike Pompeo was heading up one of the Benghazi Inquiries, he demanded tens of thousands of documents from the State Department, and then castigated Hillary Clinton's State Department for not producing the documents fast enough, and threatened to charge the Obama Administration with Obstruction of Congress, because they took too long.

Pompeo's State Department has refused to turn over a single document and has tried to block staff from testifying.

No doubt the hypocrisy of Repubs is just stunning. There are no shortage of examples from Pompeo, Graham, Gowdy, Jordan, etc.
There's going to be a ruling on the McGahn case on Monday. I don't see how the court can rule he will not be compelled to testify unless the decision is left to Trump appointees. Once the ruling is made it gives the obstruction charge even more substantive legal backing. It is not disputable that Trump has obstructed a fully authorized impeachment inquiry...........just as Nixon did. It only takes one count of the articles of impeachment to pass to remove the prez. I don't see how the Repubs can vote against the charge of obstruction without twisting themselves in knots.

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

1 no evidence
2 the witnesses said "no quid pro quo"
3 the Ukrain president said to pressure

 

[blackhawk]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

So we can take your response to mean if this was a Democrat President and a Republican controlled House doing this you would still support impeachment.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election.

Nonsense. A candidate is not protected from criminal investigation by virtue of his candidacy.

The issue is that the investigation was being solicited by way of extorting Ukraine for the political benefit of Trump. That is a black letter violation of the law.

No, it wasn't, but feel free to produce what evidence you think you have.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

"Obstruction of Congress" is neither a High Crime nor a Misdemeanor.

Congress can conduct what it wants, but they aren't constitutionally entitled under Penalty of Impeachment to the President's documents or testimony.

If they disagree, and think they are entitled, their relief is to go through the court system

 

[berg80]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

So we can take your response to mean if this was a Democrat President and a Republican controlled House doing this you would still support impeachment.

As difficult as it may be, we have to stop looking thru the lens of partisan politics. What Trump did represents an abuse of presidential power and is an illegal act. Dem, Repub, or Independent........when we go down the road of allowing such behavior to go on without accountability there is no putting that genie back in the bottle.

 

[Anathema]

View attachment 291274

Whether you think it’s stupid or not; there is a Moral imperative to do EVERYTHING possible to destroy Leftists, Progressives and those who support them.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to hiding crimes.

Nobody is hiding anything. Show me where anybody in the Trump administration demonstrated criminal activity.

All you have to do is to read the Trump's "transcript" of the call. The "ask" is the crime. The other crimes were committed by staffers like Sondland, Morrison and Volker who tried to implement the extortion at the President's behest.

So please show me the law against a President asking a leader of another country to look into possible wrongdoings of our representatives.

The Democrats seem to believe that mere political candidacy protects them from criminal investigation.

Joe Biden has not been nominated, therefore he is not a political opponent

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They claim quid pro quo's are illegal, except when Biden and Hussein used them.

Any comparison between the attempted extortion of Ukraine to elicit a personal political favor for Don for which he alone would benefit and the US (as well as EU members and the IMF) seeking the removal of a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine to combat corruption there is specious.

What personal gain did Trump get? Please show me this personal gain of yours.

The solicitation of an investigation in to the Biden's is in itself a crime even if it was not delivered, just as attempted robbery is a crime even if it is not successful.

Wrong. A President has every right to ask a leader of another country if any of our representatives or agencies have committed crimes in their country. There is no law against that.

Not when the request is in regards to someone the prez may face in an election. Besides, Trump knows there was no wrongdoing. That's why he wanted so badly for Ukraine to announce they were launching an investigation. That alone was enough for Don to use it to smear Biden with...........which is really what he was after. What Don understands well is The Following will believe anything he says. Plus, he has an entire media cohort, most of all Faux Noise, to reinforce everything he says no matter how untruthful it is.

First of all, Biden is not his opponent yet. July was exactly 16 months away from the election. What you are saying is that every member of the Democrat party running for the nomination is immune from any criminal activity or investigations thereof.

Secondly, out of all the candidates, Biden would be the easiest for Trump to beat. He can't go one week in public without making a fool out of himself. At times he doesn't even know what state he's in. Other times he doesn't even know which way the stage is.

A great example is what happened last week. Slow Joe made the claim that he had the support of the only black female Senator for his nomination. That would be fine, except for the fact he was standing right next to Harris when he stated that lie.



This man is more confused than a baby in a topless bar. Trump prays for Biden to be his challenger.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

no, biden broke the law

 

[berg80]

"Obstruction of Congress" is neither a High Crime nor a Misdemeanor.

Yet, it was one of the articles of impeachment as a result of the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

 

[Polishprince]

"Obstruction of Congress" is neither a High Crime nor a Misdemeanor.

Yet, it was one of the articles of impeachment as a result of the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

Nixon was never impeached.

 

[berg80]

I have a simple litmus test for how seriously one really feels about this impeachment inquiry and how much you are just being a blind partisan. If everything was the same except the President being investigated was a Democrat and it was a Republican controlled House doing the impeachment inquiry would you still support it and if you are on the right would you still oppose it? For the record I feel this impeachment attempt is a total sham and is being doen simply because the Democrats did not get what they wanted with the Mueller investigation and if this was a Democrat President and Republican controlled House doing this I would feel the same way. Impeachment is a drastic and serious matter and should not used in a light hearted and trivial manner the way it is being used here I will remind the left this will not end when Trump leaves office one day the precedent that has been set by the Democrats with this attempted impeachment will be used against a Democrat President.

But............Trump broke the law when he solicited Ukraine's help in influencing a US election.

Section 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, 18 U.S.C. § 201 | Casetext

no, biden broke the law

He said without evidence.