| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/06/19 10:58 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
 |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/07/19 2:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| A growing number of House Democrats in swing states have voiced their concerns about moving forward with impeachment without any evidence of wrongdoing. It's possible they no longer have 218 votes and this vote will die in the House.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/08/19 6:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| A growing number of House Democrats in swing states have voiced their concerns about moving forward with impeachment without any evidence of wrongdoing. It's possible they no longer have 218 votes and this vote will die in the House. |
Only in the FOX anti-reality zone, is this even a thought.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/09/19 8:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| A growing number of House Democrats in swing states have voiced their concerns about moving forward with impeachment without any evidence of wrongdoing. It's possible they no longer have 218 votes and this vote will die in the House. |
Only in the FOX anti-reality zone, is this even a thought. |
It's called reality. Try getting off of thinkprogress.org every now and then and get yourself some real facts.
Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that they are moving away from the Ukraine scope and expanding it to "abuse of power" or whatever sticks to the wall. They just spent 3 weeks getting testimony from people who know nothing because they weren't on the phone call. Now it's back to the Mueller investigation and "obstruction" and whatever else they can use to gin up their base. Maybe they throw "racism" in there too.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/09/19 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Trump's actions with Ukraine is the abuse of power charge, so the idea that they are "moving away" from it is flat out wrong. It's always been what the charge was and what they were trying to determine, since a president abiding their power is exactly what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" historically means.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/09/19 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Trump's actions with Ukraine is the abuse of power charge, so the idea that they are "moving away" from it is flat out wrong. It's always been what the charge was and what they were trying to determine, since a president abiding their power is exactly what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" historically means. |
So then what is the abuse of power in Ukraine, since no one is saying what said abuse of power actually entails?
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/09/19 1:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justin, before you respond with another wrong answer, you should probably consult the news about what your Speaker is saying:
https://apnews.com/57518f0072af442af2a43f359f32d541
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are bringing the impeachment focus back to Russia as they draft formal charges against President Donald Trump.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots — “all roads lead to Putin,” she says — and making the argument that Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on the 2016 election.
“This has been going on for 2 1/2 years,” Pelosi said Friday.
“This isn’t about Ukraine,” she explained a day earlier. ”’It’s about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.” |
We went from "obstruction" to "quid pro quo" to "bribery" to "abuse of power." This House vote isn't the slam dunk that many of you think it is. Every single "witness" who was questioned over the last 3 weeks was asked if they knew whether President Trump committed an impeachable offense, under penalty of perjury. Not a single person said, "yes."
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63770
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/19 12:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-3RmHMg-0Pw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/19 11:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
justin, before you respond with another wrong answer, you should probably consult the news about what your Speaker is saying:
https://apnews.com/57518f0072af442af2a43f359f32d541
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are bringing the impeachment focus back to Russia as they draft formal charges against President Donald Trump.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots — “all roads lead to Putin,” she says — and making the argument that Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on the 2016 election.
“This has been going on for 2 1/2 years,” Pelosi said Friday.
“This isn’t about Ukraine,” she explained a day earlier. ”’It’s about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.” |
We went from "obstruction" to "quid pro quo" to "bribery" to "abuse of power." This House vote isn't the slam dunk that many of you think it is. Every single "witness" who was questioned over the last 3 weeks was asked if they knew whether President Trump committed an impeachable offense, under penalty of perjury. Not a single person said, "yes." |
A very Republican non sequitur indeed.
Had any of them said "yes", "your" reply would have been- this isn't a trial; they aren't lawyers, etc etc blah blah gaslight gaslight. I wonder if you'll ever realize how much/far you've been had/taken. (I realize it's possible you completely understand how traitorous/despicable/lawless Trump is, and you support him anyway.)
IIRC, you were sure Pelosi wouldn't begin Impeachment Hearings.
The good news for US Democracy is, even should the Senate find in his favor, Trump (if he has the balls to stay long enough) will be bounced in 2020, despite the usual Republican illegalities.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63770
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/19 12:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J1UncI_raSQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 6:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
justin, before you respond with another wrong answer, you should probably consult the news about what your Speaker is saying:
https://apnews.com/57518f0072af442af2a43f359f32d541
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are bringing the impeachment focus back to Russia as they draft formal charges against President Donald Trump.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots — “all roads lead to Putin,” she says — and making the argument that Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on the 2016 election.
“This has been going on for 2 1/2 years,” Pelosi said Friday.
“This isn’t about Ukraine,” she explained a day earlier. ”’It’s about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.” |
We went from "obstruction" to "quid pro quo" to "bribery" to "abuse of power." This House vote isn't the slam dunk that many of you think it is. Every single "witness" who was questioned over the last 3 weeks was asked if they knew whether President Trump committed an impeachable offense, under penalty of perjury. Not a single person said, "yes." |
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? You really should get out of your right wing media bubble and listen to what is actually going on.
Just as I predicted, the Articles of Impeachment that were drafted dealt solely with Ukraine and didn't include anything from the Mueller investigation. So much for "moving away from Ukraine" and your out-of-context quoting of Pelosi.
| Quote: |
| A vigorous debate unfolded, and in the end Ms. Pelosi made the call: There would be only two articles of impeachment, on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, narrowly focused on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. |
There has never been a "went from" as all the terms you used there, "abuse of power", "bribery", and "quid pro quo", all reference the same act; one that falls under the "High crimes and misdemeanors" provision in the Constitution.
And all the legal scholars (including the Republican's expert) agreed that what he is accused of doing is an impeachable act. The only disagreement was that the Republican's expert felt they did not have enough evidence and should wait for the courts to force the witnesses Trump is barring from testifying to do so.
While I personally agree that they should have waited for the courts, it would drag out drag out something that almost certainly the Republicans, who have made it clear that Party comes before Country in their eyes, wouldn't support. That being the case, they added the second Article charging him with obstruction of Congress.
As for the other witnesses not saying "yes" as to if what he did rises to the level of an impeachable offense, of course they didn't. Those witnesses were not experts in constitutional law, and thus that question was outside their purview. They were there to provide testimony to the material facts of the case, leaving it up to Congress to decide if those facts warranted impeachment. Which is as it should be. It's not their place to determine whether or not it was impeachable; that job belongs to Congress.
But while I would have liked them to wait on the courts, the evidence testified to by the witnesses was compelling. Yes, they never got the "smoking gun" that some of the others likely would have been able to provide, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a very strong case. There have been people convicted of crimes and sent to prison for the rest of their lives with less evidence. It's pretty clear that Trump withheld the aid to to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the discredited conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections.
And yes, the vote on impeachment is a slam dunk. My best educated guess is that there will be 2 "no" votes from Democratic Representatives, both in extremely red districts that Trump won handily in 2016. If they didn't have the votes, they would not have drafted the Articles. On something like this, there is literally no way they wouldn't already have the whip count and be certain it will pass.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63770
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 9:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qsrWwmywoXQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 11:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? You really should get out of your right wing media bubble and listen to what is actually going on.
|
When was I wrong about anything? You couldn't dig up one thing I ever said where you ended up being right.
| justintyme wrote: |
Just as I predicted, the Articles of Impeachment that were drafted dealt solely with Ukraine and didn't include anything from the Mueller investigation. So much for "moving away from Ukraine" and your out-of-context quoting of Pelosi.
| Quote: |
| A vigorous debate unfolded, and in the end Ms. Pelosi made the call: There would be only two articles of impeachment, on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, narrowly focused on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. |
There has never been a "went from" as all the terms you used there, "abuse of power", "bribery", and "quid pro quo", all reference the same act; one that falls under the "High crimes and misdemeanors" provision in the Constitution. |
Just as YOU predicted? You mean just as everyone already knew?
I bet you can't put your finger on a single thing he did that is considered impeachable. Bribery? You tell me what the bribe was. Oh wait, you can't. You must be thinking of your 2020 nominee.
Quid pro quo? As the sole authority in dictating foreign policy, quid pro quo is completely acceptable. But what was the quid pro quo? The President asked for an investigation into CrowdStrike, and after the phone call, the money was released without anything in return. So there also goes your argument about asking Ukraine to investigating the Bidens, because that incident only exists in your head because you only read left-wing news and that's what they told you to think.
| justintyme wrote: |
| And all the legal scholars (including the Republican's expert) agreed that what he is accused of doing is an impeachable act. The only disagreement was that the Republican's expert felt they did not have enough evidence and should wait for the courts to force the witnesses Trump is barring from testifying to do so. |
Here's the problem with that: He didn't do any of the things they were accusing him of. In fact, they said IF the President did any of said things. IF.
| justintyme wrote: |
| While I personally agree that they should have waited for the courts, it would drag out drag out something that almost certainly the Republicans, who have made it clear that Party comes before Country in their eyes, wouldn't support. That being the case, they added the second Article charging him with obstruction of Congress. |
Well if they get their votes, it certainly will go to the courts.
Let me ask you something: What value do you think there is in obstruction of Congress? Could you tell me without your usual bias what said obstruction is, and whether or not it merits impeachment?
| justintyme wrote: |
| As for the other witnesses not saying "yes" as to if what he did rises to the level of an impeachable offense, of course they didn't. Those witnesses were not experts in constitutional law, and thus that question was outside their purview. They were there to provide testimony to the material facts of the case, leaving it up to Congress to decide if those facts warranted impeachment. Which is as it should be. It's not their place to determine whether or not it was impeachable; that job belongs to Congress. |
Wrong. They didn't say "yes" because they didn't hear the phone call. They weren't asked if it was an impeachable offense, they were asked if they witnessed or had any firsthand knowledge of the offenses that they were called to testify about. You don't call witnesses because they are experts in Constitutional law. I have no idea where you are trying to go with THAT argument. Yes, they were there to provide material facts, to which there are still NONE as of right now.
| justintyme wrote: |
But while I would have liked them to wait on the courts, the evidence testified to by the witnesses was compelling. Yes, they never got the "smoking gun" that some of the others likely would have been able to provide, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a very strong case. There have been people convicted of crimes and sent to prison for the rest of their lives with less evidence. It's pretty clear that Trump withheld the aid to to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the discredited conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections. |
Don't you think that's important? Not having a smoking gun on an impeachment trial where only one party with a one-chamber majority is bringing up "high crimes and misdemeanors" in a display of complete political partisanship? You don't think they're putting the cart before the horse?
| justintyme wrote: |
| And yes, the vote on impeachment is a slam dunk. My best educated guess is that there will be 2 "no" votes from Democratic Representatives, both in extremely red districts that Trump won handily in 2016. If they didn't have the votes, they would not have drafted the Articles. On something like this, there is literally no way they wouldn't already have the whip count and be certain it will pass. |
Well if it does pass the vote, there will be consequences. As you already know. I won't cry any tears if it costs them the House.
It's possible they only get the vote by some House members not voting.
I'm still waiting to hear from you what it is the President did that is FACTUAL and warrants impeachment. And don't give the "mountains of evidence" line. Mountains of evidence of WHAT?
...A question you still cannot answer
Last edited by Stonington_QB on 12/11/19 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 12:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
A very Republican non sequitur indeed.
Had any of them said "yes", "your" reply would have been- this isn't a trial; they aren't lawyers, etc etc blah blah gaslight gaslight. I wonder if you'll ever realize how much/far you've been had/taken. (I realize it's possible you completely understand how traitorous/despicable/lawless Trump is, and you support him anyway.)
IIRC, you were sure Pelosi wouldn't begin Impeachment Hearings.
The good news for US Democracy is, even should the Senate find in his favor, Trump (if he has the balls to stay long enough) will be bounced in 2020, despite the usual Republican illegalities. |
Is that what I would have said? No. It's only in your little fantasy world where I would deny the facts. I'll leave that up to you.
Here's another reality check for you: After the facts come in the trial (if it gets that far) President Trump will be exonerated and then it's on to the Durham investigation, followed by re-election, followed by RBG's retirement, followed by possible a 6-3 or even a 7-2 majority in the SCOTUS.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63770
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 2:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
after the phone call, the money was released without anything in return. |
Haven’t you been keeping up? He released the aid two days after he found out about the whistle blower complaint. He released the aid because he got caught. When you attempt a crime you’re still guilty of that crime.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Let me ask you something: What value do you think there is in obstruction of Congress? |
Trump keeps instructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas, most likely promising pardons for those who those who get into trouble for doing so. If he’s got nothing to hide, let the witnesses speak. If he’s got nothing to hide, show his taxes. Yeah obviously he always has something to hide.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| only one party with a one-chamber majority is bringing up "high crimes and misdemeanors" in a display of complete political partisanship? |
If it’s partisan, that’s a statement to the (low) morality of the Republican Party, not a statement on Trump’s innocence. It should be bipartisan.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Well if it does pass the vote, there will be consequences. As you already know. I won't cry any tears if it costs them the House. |
I think it’s much more likely the Republicans lose the senate. Empathetic people who have a conscience are fed up with this bs.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| I'm still waiting to hear from you what it is the President did that is FACTUAL and warrants impeachment. |
Read the call transcript. Are you like Trump, you don’t understand why it’s against the law?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 2:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
Haven’t you been keeping up? He released the aid two days after he found out about the whistle blower complaint. He released the aid because he got caught. When you attempt a crime you’re still guilty of that crime. |
What crime was that? There is no law saying that we have to hand out foreign aid. If there were, Obama would have already been in jail since he withheld aid to Ukraine for 8 years. And Joe Biden would also be in jail since he bragged about having a prosecutor in Ukraine fired.
| Shades wrote: |
| Trump keeps instructing witnesses to ignore subpoenas, most likely promising pardons for those who those who get into trouble for doing so. If he’s got nothing to hide, let the witnesses speak. If he’s got nothing to hide, show his taxes. Yeah obviously he always has something to hide. |
President Trump is under no obligation to comply with an inquiry. What he does have is executive privilege to do exactly what he did. So we still don't have a crime or a legitimate claim of obstruction.
| Shades wrote: |
If it’s partisan, that’s a statement to the (low) morality of the Republican Party, not a statement on Trump’s innocence. It should be bipartisan. |
It's a statement to the morality of the Democrats as they have block ALL of the Republicans' witnesses during the inquiry. They also had a list of approved witnesses and then blocked them AGAIN. Then on Monday, their "witness," an MSNBC lawyer, was called to testify, and then as soon as his testimony was finished, proceeded to interrogate the next witness. You're right, it SHOULD be bipartisan. The Democrats demonstrated that they had no interest in that.
| Shades wrote: |
I think it’s much more likely the Republicans lose the senate. Empathetic people who have a conscience are fed up with this bs. |
You're right about the second part, but you will see that it's the antics of the Democrats that the country is sick and tired of.
A trial without a crime. THAT'S what your party is running their hopes on right now.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/19 8:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
You keep using the term "crime" like it has something to do with the subject at hand. Which tells me you don't actually understand what the Constitution says are "impeachable offenses". Which means you are once again blathering on about something you are clueless about (and the most obvious time you were wrong was when you claimed that he wouldn't be impeached at all, and that the Democrats would struggle to find the votes).
As to impeachable offenses, the Constitution clearly says that someone can be impeached for "High crimes and Misdemeanors". This phrase has a very specific meaning, which has little to do with things that are literally against the law (though committing a crime would likely fall under that provision--depending on what crime it was). Rather "High crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to abuses of political power.
In this case you have a president that used the power of his office for personal gain and at the expense of national interests. He did that by withholding a congressionally designated aid package from Ukraine that we heard witness after witness state was essential for the security of Ukraine, the security of which is of extreme importance to our national interests. And we also learned, from a witness with direct first hand knowledge that Trump had conditioned an offical White House visit for Ukraine's President Zelensky upon him agreeing, and publicly committing to, investigations of the Bidens. The witnesses also testified that Giuliani was over in Ukraine pedaling conspiracy theories and that he was conditioning the aid package on the same public announcement as the White House visit. One witness testified that Trump ordered him directly to follow Rudy's lead on Ukraine.
The end result of all this testimony is that it's clear that Trump withheld aid that was in the nation's interest because he wanted information on the Bidens. While as I said, there is no smoking gun, the evidence when taken in its totality, paints a clear picture of a president abusing the power of his office for personal gain. And the idea you need a "smoking gun" to impeach a president when one isn't required to send someone to death row, is nonsense.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/19 6:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
As to impeachable offenses, the Constitution clearly says that someone can be impeached for "High crimes and Misdemeanors". This phrase has a very specific meaning, which has little to do with things that are literally against the law (though committing a crime would likely fall under that provision--depending on what crime it was). Rather "High crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to abuses of political power.
In this case you have a president that used the power of his office for personal gain and at the expense of national interests. He did that by withholding a congressionally designated aid package from Ukraine that we heard witness after witness state was essential for the security of Ukraine, the security of which is of extreme importance to our national interests. And we also learned, from a witness with direct first hand knowledge that Trump had conditioned an offical White House visit for Ukraine's President Zelensky upon him agreeing, and publicly committing to, investigations of the Bidens. |
Too bad he never did any of that. What is it that he did for personal gain? Nothing. Asking Ukraine to investigate CrowdStrike is not a crime or a misdemeanor or an impeachable offense no matter how hard you want it to be one. He never asked them to investigate the Bidens. The only people who are saying that are the ones you are getting your false information from. And even if he did (which he did NOT), so what? Obviously Joe Biden and Obama were abusing their powers.
Witness after witness had NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of the phone call and even Vindman did not refute the transcript, only said that there were some things redacted (that are classified). There is no smoking gun there. Sorry but there is not. Congress had already seen the unredacted transcript. I get that you only believe what you want to, but this impeachment is going to end the exact same way the Mueller investigation ended... with you refusing to believe the truth.
| justintyme wrote: |
The witnesses also testified that Giuliani was over in Ukraine pedaling conspiracy theories and that he was conditioning the aid package on the same public announcement as the White House visit. One witness testified that Trump ordered him directly to follow Rudy's lead on Ukraine. |
You are grossly misinterpreting what was said in the testimony. You are believing a theory and not actual testimony from a fact witness.
| justintyme wrote: |
The end result of all this testimony is that it's clear that Trump withheld aid that was in the nation's interest because he wanted information on the Bidens. While as I said, there is no smoking gun, the evidence when taken in its totality, paints a clear picture of a president abusing the power of his office for personal gain. And the idea you need a "smoking gun" to impeach a president when one isn't required to send someone to death row, is nonsense. |
You need to educate yourself on what CrowdStrike is. Because clearly you think it has something to do with the Bidens. I'm not going to sit here and explain this to you. There were no witnesses to anything, contrary to what you choose to believe. At this point if this ever goes to trial, either the facts will come out, or Adam Schiff and others will just simply refuse to testify. Either way, you will refuse to acknowledge what really happened here.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63770
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/19 8:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| What is it that he did for personal gain? Nothing. Asking Ukraine to investigate CrowdStrike is not a crime or a misdemeanor or an impeachable offense no matter how hard you want it to be one. He never asked them to investigate the Biden’s. |
You seem to be in denial, but Trump’s not.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rLdqhpsrbUE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/19 10:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
918 folks drank the kool aid to their death at Jonestown.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the existence of millions of magamorons in the USA.
It still is fascinating.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
|
|
Cuz that would fit with his various and sundry tactics seen in recent 'tight spots' )
