If The Senate shuts this down....

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

Yeah, bullshit.

That's all you ever have is bullshit. If you accidentally told the truth, your head would explode!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The D's have done their job, they had two hearings and presented witnesses and documents necessary and sufficient to hold the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, to answer. They presented all the evidence necessary to impeach The President.

Not when they were kneecapped by an administration that refused to honor subpoenas. Not by a long shot.

Time will tell if the evidence presented is so incriminating that even Sen. Graham will fold and vote to convict the Defendant; consider, Senators are Pols and most pols sole concern is what will the voters do, if they don't vote how the majority of their constituents believe.

Most Americans want justice to prevail, notwithstanding the, "lock her up" set.

And some of us know that's 'justice' is simply not going to happen in this reality show circus administration, so we wait for November.

Did the Dems go to court to force those subpoenaed to testify? No, they did not.

They weren't given the time, you know that, you partisan ass.

Who was not given the time? Try your bullshit excuses elsewhere. The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.

Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not when they were kneecapped by an administration that refused to honor subpoenas. Not by a long shot.

And some of us know that's 'justice' is simply not going to happen in this reality show circus administration, so we wait for November.

Did the Dems go to court to force those subpoenaed to testify? No, they did not.

They weren't given the time, you know that, you partisan ass.

Who was not given the time? Try your bullshit excuses elsewhere. The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.

Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,

I don't know. Obama did the exact same thing as Trump, and that was withhold documents the Republican Congress subpoenaed. It took a couple of years before a final judgement was made.

 

[Andylusion]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT

It's crystal clear that Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are eager to sweep this Senate impeachment trial under the rug, shut it down, and allow no new evidence or witnesses. But what happens if they try to do that? Will other Republican Senators march in lockstep, and try to deal with the coming election fallout in November? Will they break ranks and join the Democrats in insisting documents and witnesses being suppressed by President Trump be revealed? Recent polling shows:

71% of Democrats, 56% of Independents and 40% of Republicans say Senate should call additional witnesses to testify.

51% say Senate should remove Trump from office.

Either way, Senate Republicans are in a tough spot. Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

JMHO - Too close to call right now.

Thoughts?

Most Voters Want More Impeachment Witnesses as Senate Prepares for Trial

Why? For what purpose? The house had all the time in the world to call as many witnesses as they could have possibly wanted. Why are you expecting the Senate to do something the house didn't do?

This is not logical on any level. The house did hearings on this. They could have called anyone. They could have laid out their case.

The bottom line is, no matter what your polls say..... there is no crime here. End of story.

Crime isn't determined by poll numbers. If everyone on this forum voted that "bill718" committed a crime.... does that mean you are a criminal and need banned from the forum?

That is the same logic you are using, citing a bunch of poll numbers, and then saying Trump should be removed from office.

In fact, it's worse than that... because we had the house investigate this, and they came up with absolutely nothing.

So it would be like the moderators investigating every post "bill718" made, finding nothing at all that was wrong, or a violation of the rules, and then saying let's have a poll on if you are guilty, and if everyone says you are... then so what that the mods found nothing wrong with your post... we voted you should be banned, and thus you should be banned.

This is dumb.

Stop posting poll numbers. Polls are not evidence. The fact this is what you have to post, proves to me that Trump did nothing wrong, or you would be posting that proof. You can't post that proof, because there is none. Your garbage reasons for removing Trump, have been shot down in ever thread created on the topic.

This is why Trumps poll numbers have been going up, not down.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did the Dems go to court to force those subpoenaed to testify? No, they did not.

They weren't given the time, you know that, you partisan ass.

Who was not given the time? Try your bullshit excuses elsewhere. The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.

Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,

I don't know. Obama did the exact same thing as Trump, and that was withhold documents the Republican Congress subpoenaed. It took a couple of years before a final judgement was made.

You are confused. Obama refused to turn over documents and Holder was found in contempt. That's an incredibly huge difference.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They weren't given the time, you know that, you partisan ass.

Who was not given the time? Try your bullshit excuses elsewhere. The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.

Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,

I don't know. Obama did the exact same thing as Trump, and that was withhold documents the Republican Congress subpoenaed. It took a couple of years before a final judgement was made.

You are confused. Obama refused to turn over documents and Holder was found in contempt. That's an incredibly huge difference.

The courts still had to decide that Obama was not protected by executive order. That's not to say they might have rushed it through a little faster since we're talking about impeachment. But what makes this whole thing suspicious is why they felt they needed it rushed through as fast as they did, and then stalled for a couple of weeks before forwarding it to the Senate.

 

[beautress]

The House could not extend consequences. The Senate can. If the Senate is denied anything by the President, they can vote to remove him from office in compliance with the House's Impeachment article. Simple as that. The Court rulings have already been made under Nixon which is considered the modern Gold Standard. And there won't be any court ruling since that ruling has already been made. Rump would be removed from office should the Senate choose. The House did not have that option.

Using the Nixon Trial as the Gold Standard, the Senate can compel anyone to testify under oath including any of the Cabinet members past or present. Executive Privilege only extends to those items that CONGRESS deems as National Security. And I doubt if the two articles of impeachment have anything to do with National Security. Rumps actions with Ukraine and his trying to cover his tracks have zero to do with national security. Therefore, any and all information pertaining to either are fair game. And it's the Senates obligation to call any and all witnesses pertaining to the two articles of impeachment. If Justice Roberts believes calling Hunter Biden is within those confines then that, too, is within those confines. The only US Citizen that cannot be force to testify is Rump, himself.

Moscow Mitch is trying to keep on representing Rump instead of the People of the United States of America. He's trying to rewrite the rules set by the Nixon and Clinton Impeachment proceedings.

YAWWWWWWWWWWWN....

LANDSLIDE 2020....

Jo

Not the landslide you thing.

Better think again.

Mind-Blowing! 58% Of Attendees at Trump's Wisconsin Rally Were NOT Republicans, Up from 43% in Ohio

Nice Cite. And it's mostly made up shit. You should know better. Here is the factcheck info on your site.

RedState

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

Overall, we rate RedState borderline Questionable and strongly Right Biased, based on story selection that always favors the right and use of emotionally loaded (sensationalized) headlines. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and a few failed fact checks.

Overall, we rate RedState borderline Questionable and strongly Right Biased, based on story selection that always favors the right and use of emotionally loaded (sensationalized) headlines. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and a few failed fact checks. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 4/20/2019)

Fact check sites are fake news, moron. Especially that site.

Democrat hoi polloi don't know that unless they're smart enough to pretend they don't know.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT

It's crystal clear that Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are eager to sweep this Senate impeachment trial under the rug, shut it down, and allow no new evidence or witnesses. But what happens if they try to do that? Will other Republican Senators march in lockstep, and try to deal with the coming election fallout in November? Will they break ranks and join the Democrats in insisting documents and witnesses being suppressed by President Trump be revealed? Recent polling shows:

71% of Democrats, 56% of Independents and 40% of Republicans say Senate should call additional witnesses to testify.

51% say Senate should remove Trump from office.

Either way, Senate Republicans are in a tough spot. Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

JMHO - Too close to call right now.

Thoughts?

Most Voters Want More Impeachment Witnesses as Senate Prepares for Trial

any judge would throw this out like a frivolous lawsuit, this a frivolous impeachment

 

[beautress]

AT least Juris Dr. Roberts made certain they were in a different environment now

THOUGHTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT

It's crystal clear that Senators Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are eager to sweep this Senate impeachment trial under the rug, shut it down, and allow no new evidence or witnesses. But what happens if they try to do that? Will other Republican Senators march in lockstep, and try to deal with the coming election fallout in November? Will they break ranks and join the Democrats in insisting documents and witnesses being suppressed by President Trump be revealed? Recent polling shows:

71% of Democrats, 56% of Independents and 40% of Republicans say Senate should call additional witnesses to testify.

51% say Senate should remove Trump from office.

Either way, Senate Republicans are in a tough spot. Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

JMHO - Too close to call right now.

Thoughts?

Most Voters Want More Impeachment Witnesses as Senate Prepares for Trial

Thank you, Bill718, for your Independent opinion and a pretty good thread, but this morning Chief Justice Roberts admonished both sides to remember where they are:
Chief Justice Roberts admonishes impeachment managers and Trump team, reminds them to 'remember where they are'

So now they know they have to act like big boys and girls.

 

[rightwinger]

History will judge the impeachment trial

It has already judged Clinton’s impeachment as partisan excess
It will view the Trump impeachment as a partisan cover up

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.

Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.

Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!

Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.

 

[beautress]

Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.

Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.

Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!

Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.

Too bad the impeachment fiasco is near ended. I hope his speech only leaves Schiff with 5 minutes or less on his allowed speaking moments. Because he isn't in charge any more. He's now officially at the mercy of those he showed no mercy to, and he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Dems had to get their shots in early. Then when they reintroduce the same articles, what then, is Moscow Mitch going to table them again? It really doesn't matter when it happens. And the opening arguments were already done. You are just preaching to the Rumpsters, not the rest of us. We already know where MM gets his marching orders from and the rest of the Reps just follow the leader blindly. As it stands now, at least 2 Republican Senators are toast. Gardner didn't have a poor name. But he does now. He was warned. He was reelected on an Anti Rump stance but now that he's facing tough competition he's thrown in with Rump as a last ditch effort to try and save his job. But the Rump Card ran out in 2018.

When are the Reps going to stop blindly following the Orange Deity.

Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.

Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.

The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.

So please post the evidence that the Congress sanctioned Biden's threat of withholding it. And no, Trump only stopped the money for two weeks. Quid pro quo's do not need congressional approval.

Would you accept something right off the Senate.gov site? You keep lying out your ass and then we factcheck you and call you on your lies. It's like you have a room full of monkeys with keyboards that type your responses. And those Monkeys are all liars to boot.

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption

Here is the actual letter from Congress.


Dear President Poroshenko,


As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius‎ and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.


During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius‎’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.


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. 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.


Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.


We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.

It goes even deeper than that. There were numerous phone calls and letters to have them fire the prosecutor due to corruption. Biden just drove home the point that everyone in the Free World was wanting. And unless that action and others weren't done, not one single dime was going to be authorized by the US Congress. Biden drove home the point and put a 6 hour time limit on it. And they complied in full inside of those 6 hours. Did Biden personally have the authority to tie those funds up? No. But he was representing the US Congress at the time as well as the President. The funds have already been suspended by Congress.

There you have it. So stop lying. I know your Orange Deity lies 1/3rd of the time when he speaks but that doesn't mean you have to.

So what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? The only mention of Shokin was about reform, not demanding his termination. And how many judges did Biden get fired as well? I'm willing to bet zero.

The letter was leading up to just that. There were many phone calls about it. Biden just put it very straight forward. You want the money, you fire him. And he had the backing of the Congress and the President. No, Biden didn't have the power to withhold the funds but Congress did and the loan backing was not approved. BTW, it isn't Foreign Aid, it's loan guarentees. Like co-signing. Ukraine couldn't get a loan to save their own life Literally) without the US co-signing for the loan. At the time, Ukraine was on the Congress Corrupt List and Congress openly demanded they take steps to ease the corruption of no loan.

Nice try at a "Gotcha". Now, stop trying to do a "Hey, Look Over There". Stay focused. This impeachment is about Rump and his merry band of Criminals and no one else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Corey Gardner was warned. he didn't listen and he's block voted on all 11 measures to table. Colorado is NOT a Red State. Only two or three counties are Red and the papers aren't being kind on this either nor are the letters to the editor. It doesn't matter if you support Rump or not, the fact that the Senate Reps are blocking a fair and even hearing and only wants to rubber stamp things isn't going too well. Hey, we paid for the show, where's the floor show.

That's totally for the uniformed voters who won't vote for Trump anyway. Those of us who understand what's going on realize the Republicans wanted to have opening arguments first, and then decide if witnesses were needed. The Democrats insisted it go the opposite way, because they knew the Republicans would vote against doing it backwards. It's a show.

Show me one criminal trial where witnesses were called to testify before opening arguments.

The Dems had to get their shots in early. Then when they reintroduce the same articles, what then, is Moscow Mitch going to table them again? It really doesn't matter when it happens. And the opening arguments were already done. You are just preaching to the Rumpsters, not the rest of us. We already know where MM gets his marching orders from and the rest of the Reps just follow the leader blindly. As it stands now, at least 2 Republican Senators are toast. Gardner didn't have a poor name. But he does now. He was warned. He was reelected on an Anti Rump stance but now that he's facing tough competition he's thrown in with Rump as a last ditch effort to try and save his job. But the Rump Card ran out in 2018.

When are the Reps going to stop blindly following the Orange Deity.

Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.

Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.

The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.

There you go lying again!

I suggest you ask the OMB that same question. They seem to believe Rump broke the law withholding those funds. At first, they adhered to the demands of Rump but it appears they finally just had enough.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.

Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.

Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!

Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.

Too bad the impeachment fiasco is near ended. I hope his speech only leaves Schiff with 5 minutes or less on his allowed speaking moments. Because he isn't in charge any more. He's now officially at the mercy of those he showed no mercy to, and he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

You can dream all you want. Wish in one hand and ..........

 

[BS Filter]

That's totally for the uniformed voters who won't vote for Trump anyway. Those of us who understand what's going on realize the Republicans wanted to have opening arguments first, and then decide if witnesses were needed. The Democrats insisted it go the opposite way, because they knew the Republicans would vote against doing it backwards. It's a show.

Show me one criminal trial where witnesses were called to testify before opening arguments.

The Dems had to get their shots in early. Then when they reintroduce the same articles, what then, is Moscow Mitch going to table them again? It really doesn't matter when it happens. And the opening arguments were already done. You are just preaching to the Rumpsters, not the rest of us. We already know where MM gets his marching orders from and the rest of the Reps just follow the leader blindly. As it stands now, at least 2 Republican Senators are toast. Gardner didn't have a poor name. But he does now. He was warned. He was reelected on an Anti Rump stance but now that he's facing tough competition he's thrown in with Rump as a last ditch effort to try and save his job. But the Rump Card ran out in 2018.

When are the Reps going to stop blindly following the Orange Deity.

Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.

Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.

The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.

There you go lying again!

I suggest you ask the OMB that same question. They seem to believe Rump broke the law withholding those funds. At first, they adhered to the demands of Rump but it appears they finally just had enough.

The OMB has absolutely no authority over the President. They have an opinion, that's all.

 

[beautress]

Sure it matters when it happens because this is supposed to be conducted similar to a court of law. You start out with opening remarks because for one, this is where Trump's defense team is first heard, and two, the decision to call witnesses has to be determined based on what the opening arguments are. In other words, the reason Democrats insisted on something they know no Republican will agree to is a dog and pony show to try and make them look bad.

Dershowitz has appeared many times on Laura's show about this matter. HIs professional opinion is that none of these charges warrant an impeachment. Even if it can be proven Trump held aid from Ukraine until Zelensky looked into the Biden's, it's not an impeachable matter because Presidents of the past retarded aid for various reasons; Joe Biden when he was in Ukraine the most recent one.

The money wasn't the Presidents to withhold. It's Congresses call. A President can only withhold the funds at the direction of Congress. Biden had the support of the Congress. Rump did it behind closed doors and tried to hide it from Congress. He delayed it so bad that it took another Congressional act to make up the loss due to the delay. Rump broke the law and was unconstitutional. Biden followed the law within the confines of the Constitution. You can tell the same lie over and over and it's still a lie.

So please post the evidence that the Congress sanctioned Biden's threat of withholding it. And no, Trump only stopped the money for two weeks. Quid pro quo's do not need congressional approval.

Would you accept something right off the Senate.gov site? You keep lying out your ass and then we factcheck you and call you on your lies. It's like you have a room full of monkeys with keyboards that type your responses. And those Monkeys are all liars to boot.

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption

Here is the actual letter from Congress.


Dear President Poroshenko,


As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius‎ and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.


During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius‎’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.


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. 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.


Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.


We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.

It goes even deeper than that. There were numerous phone calls and letters to have them fire the prosecutor due to corruption. Biden just drove home the point that everyone in the Free World was wanting. And unless that action and others weren't done, not one single dime was going to be authorized by the US Congress. Biden drove home the point and put a 6 hour time limit on it. And they complied in full inside of those 6 hours. Did Biden personally have the authority to tie those funds up? No. But he was representing the US Congress at the time as well as the President. The funds have already been suspended by Congress.

There you have it. So stop lying. I know your Orange Deity lies 1/3rd of the time when he speaks but that doesn't mean you have to.

So what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? The only mention of Shokin was about reform, not demanding his termination. And how many judges did Biden get fired as well? I'm willing to bet zero.

The letter was leading up to just that. There were many phone calls about it. Biden just put it very straight forward. You want the money, you fire him. And he had the backing of the Congress and the President. No, Biden didn't have the power to withhold the funds but Congress did and the loan backing was not approved. BTW, it isn't Foreign Aid, it's loan guarentees. Like co-signing. Ukraine couldn't get a loan to save their own life Literally) without the US co-signing for the loan. At the time, Ukraine was on the Congress Corrupt List and Congress openly demanded they take steps to ease the corruption of no loan.

Nice try at a "Gotcha". Now, stop trying to do a "Hey, Look Over There". Stay focused. This impeachment is about Rump and his merry band of Criminals and no one else.

If your masters even think what you just mouthed, there are jurists there at the Senate floor, absolutely smart enough to ferret it out in an instant at which time the liars who brought these false accusations against President Trump for the past 3 years will be placing those who deserve to be in jail for their treason on trial faster than is already predictable, considering the noxious atmosphere put in Washington DC than none other than Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters who fills the shoes of not a great person, but those shoes of a dowager whose shrill screams at others kill any thought of decency in a way even the most naive person in America will clearly understand.

 

[BS Filter]

Shifty was talking about Russia Invasion today. He's a nut case.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who was not given the time? Try your bullshit excuses elsewhere. The dems had all the time in the world, but couldn't wait for the claim of Executive Privilege to work its way through the courts simply because they knew they would lose.

More than that is it's likely they wouldn't get a judgement until after the election. After all, that's what this impeachment is all about, trying to stop Trump from winning the election.

Oh, it would not take that long, maybe a couple of months. Their case was so weak ir was falling apart before they got started,

I don't know. Obama did the exact same thing as Trump, and that was withhold documents the Republican Congress subpoenaed. It took a couple of years before a final judgement was made.

You are confused. Obama refused to turn over documents and Holder was found in contempt. That's an incredibly huge difference.

The courts still had to decide that Obama was not protected by executive order. That's not to say they might have rushed it through a little faster since we're talking about impeachment. But what makes this whole thing suspicious is why they felt they needed it rushed through as fast as they did, and then stalled for a couple of weeks before forwarding it to the Senate.

Uh, I don't know what you are basing that on,but that did NOT happen. Executive privilege simply did not apply in this case.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do they cave in to public opinion and hold a fair trial? or do they cave in to Donald Trump and risk being removed from office in November?

The latter. Always the latter. This is a sham trial.

Someone has them believing that Rump will save their sorry reelections. Didn't work out so well in 2018.

Trump didn't run in 2018, dumbass!

Those candidates that he personally campaigned largely lost in 2018. Nice try at a "Gotcha". If that is the best you got, enter a nice group session to get deprogrammed.

Why do you constantly lie, thinking no one can see through that thick smear of bullshit your posts are covered in?

"... Trump endorsed 75 House and Senate candidates, of whom 42 or 55 percent won."
Trump endorsed 75 candidates in the midterms. How did they fare on Election Day?

Now, let's see you man up and admit you have no clue as to what you are talking about for once in your pathetic, miserable existence. You are the perfect example of a dumbass libtard, making shit up as you go along to fit your demented reality that no one else can see.

I will bet you don't have the balls and will just leave the thread, you miserable waste of oxygen.