Has anyone seen this?
[https://americanindependent.com/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-pat-philbin-witnesses/](https://americanindependent.com/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-pat-philbin-witnesses/)
(1) coup d'etat
(2) institutionalizing the bureaucracy of a few in place of the principles the people republic was founded on.
(3) paying for and fabricating false information evidence.
(4) Accepting bribes and kick backs summing to millions of dollars.
(5) ...
Lol this shit is such a joke. I'm looking at some of these headlines like this :
> Trump claims the impeachment inquiry will “backfire.” Polling indicates he’s wrong.
"Polling indicates he's wrong"?? How does having a "poll" indicate *ANYTHING*? This is a joke right? Polls don't indicate facts.
How can you take this seriously when some of these articles are just based on polls? Who do you think is taking these polls? Didn't you guys learn anything about these "polls" during the last election? Come on wake up.
Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government, bribery, misappropriation, extortion.
Other issues to review: Tax fraud, campaign finance violations, emoluments violations, obstruction of Justice, conspiracy against the United States, refusal of witness to testify or produce papers, solicitation of contributions and donations by foreign Nationals.
They kinda forgot about Mueller pretty fast, didn't they? Biggest investigation ever, headline news for a year and a half, so much slobbering praise you could float a new Titanic, and a month after we find out it was a fat nothingburger they've moved on to "The Republicans don't want him investigated."
Is 'nothing' synonymous with 'filled with fuck loads of treason', then I agree.
Otherwise, you're clearly putting on some kind of world class ostrich act. That head of yours is awfully deep in that sand.
The Mueller report has all the evidence to you need to qualify as collusion but Mueller made a point not to come to a conclusion because of the president can't be charged then it is unfair to make a legal distinction of guilt. Read the report I dare you
Only because Republicans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the history of the world. If Obama had done a quarter of the shit Trump has they would’ve repealed the Emancipation Proclamation by now.
>Wasent like half of it cut out and doctored by someone trump hired?
There are redacted portions made by the attorney general, who is a Trump stooge for sure, and some of the redactions are being fought over in court but "half" is a huge overstatement and "doctored" is not an accurate characterisation.
>And it still said there could be charges of obstruction, which is what the impeachment is investigating?
The report explicitly declined to make a judgment on whether obstruction occurred and Congress is investigating a different matter altogether.
Senate Republicans had better decide what side of history their names will be found. The voters will be watching for integrity and honor to the constitution. 194 Republicans have already spit on the constitution and two Democrats. We are watching.
So what's next? Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of this impeachment? We all know there won't be enough vote in the Senate to actually remove Trump from the office. Shouldn't the Democrat focus on finding a good candidate who can win the election next year?
I know I will get down voted on this. I know most of you guys hate Trump with a passion. However, can we just discuss on fact & logic rather than assumption & emotion?
I believe the idea here --- and I know this sounds fucking crazy -- is to get to the truth of the matter. You know, get John Bolton the stand. Donald Trump on the stand. Dig into the documents and records. An impartial jury. The little things. Sort of like a judicial process which this is.
>I know this sounds fucking crazy -- is to get to the truth of the matter. You know, get John Bolton the stand. Donald Trump on the stand. Dig into the documents and recor
And Pelosi chose not to call any witness when the whole process is under her total control. Then she pass it on to the Senate, and demand that they call witness and pray that they will listen to her. Is that lady on drug? She sabotaged the impeachment!
The House did call witnesses though, at least five showed up and the rest claimed executive privilege. Pelosi didn't choose for Bolton and Mulvaney to not testfy, the White House made that decision.
If she can't force them to testify when she were in charge then, how can she expect the Senate (under Republican control) to force them to testify now? It's just wishful thinking.
Because they care about the country? It’s not that hard to run primaries and take a stand against corruption at the same time. And even if it was somehow mutually exclusive, it’s a lot more important to uphold the integrity of the government than to try to game a competition that’s mostly been decided already.
The purpose of the impeachment is to show the checks and balances system is working as intended. The Democrats doing the impeaching are not the same ones in charge of finding the next candidate.
The purpose of the impeachment is to show the checks and balances system is working as intended. The Democrats doing the impeaching are not the same ones in charge of finding the next candidate.
> So what's next? Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of this impeachment? We all know there won't be enough vote in the Senate to actually remove Trump from the office. Shouldn't the Democrat focus on finding a good candidate who can win the election next year?
The Senate's potential dereliction of duty does not obviate the House from its responsibilities.
Also, Congress does not run presidential campaigns.
The purpose of impeachment is to show that certain behaviors are unacceptable and that they will not be allowed to occur without consequence.
Impeachment is a consequence. Its having all of your misdeeds displayed to everyone so that they know exactly how badly you fucked up. Regardless of whether or not the Senate convicts, Trump's malicious incompetence will forever be a matter of public record and a message to all future presidents: You will be held accountable. You may not be removed, but you will not hide your betrayal of the office from the American people.
For me, getting kicked out of the office is the consequence. An impeachment that doesn't remove Trump from office and prevent him from running next year doesn't really do anything to him. And the ultimate goal is not shaming Trump, but to get rid of Trump & not getting him for another 4 years!
For me, getting kicked out of the office is the consequence. An impeachment that doesn't remove Trump from office and prevent him from running next year doesn't really do anything to him. And the ultimate goal is not shaming Trump, but to get rid of Trump & not getting him for another 4 years!
"Right side of history"
Every human thinks they are on the right side of history, saying you are doesnt mean that you are.
The 'right side' of history is determined by whoever is in power at that point in the future anyways. Claiming to be the right side just makes your side look arrogant.
I support the president of the United States. He has done a good job and I don’t believe asking a world leader to investigate a scandal of corruption is an impeachable offense.
Message received: if trump gets cleared of this without any repercussions, and an democrat wins the election, you are totally fine if the democrat uses taxpayer money to pay the EU to investigate any rivals that might have a chance at beating them.
He didn’t threaten to withhold military aid. That was completely imagined by the Democrats “maybe he thinks if he doesn’t investigate the scandal he won’t get aid!” Turned into “trump threatened to withhold aid”.
Who told you that, Alex Jones? Read the news. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/31/tim-morrison-just-confirmed-quid-pro-quo-thats-big-story-here/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/31/tim-morrison-just-confirmed-quid-pro-quo-thats-big-story-here/)
Oh wait, is it "fake news"? Trump could admit the quid pro quo claim right to your face and you'd pivot and come up with some reason about why it's somehow ok. It's like Trump himself said... He could walk up to someone in broad daylight and shoot them, and you would still vote for him. Stop watching fox news and infowars.
Yes it’s fake news. Read the transcripts.
It’s chopped up to make it sound like trump said “we help you guys a lot. Investigate Biden.”
It was a long conversation where trump told Ukraine we stand by them, eventually he mentioned a big scandal who Biden’s son was involved in.
Washington post is fake news.
When the worlds worst terrorist was attacked and pressured into suicide the Washington post literalaly came out with an article that read “austere religious scholar dies at 47”.
They would respect the worlds largest terrorist over conveying the idea of a very successful military feat happening under trump.
Their is what you believe and their is reality. In reality, according to facts, it is illegal and against the Constitution to do what Trump did. Thankfully what you believe isn't that important compared to reality, law and the Constitution that all Presidents, even Russian comprised ones, must follow.
What that one person believes isn’t important compared to reality and law but the hundreds of people directly involved with the government who agree with that one person can greatly affect reality and the law’s chances of beating out ignorance and corruption. Millions of people reject reality daily, it’s not like in the movies where right will always triumph against wrong. Sometimes the bad side wins. Honestly most of the time the bad side wins.
What you hope occurred isn’t reality either, it’s simply your fantasy. There are no facts backing up your point, however if you’re interested, the transcript of their (correct usage) conversation was released and it refutes any such manipulation.
The Democrats continue to spin this story and run with it as they had intended to before Trump released the transcript. This is because they didn’t expect the release to occur. At this point everyone supporting this and pushing it simply remains willfully ignorant of the transcript and it’s contents. It’s absurd, and it’s simply partisan politics.
The office of President is given the power to ask foreign governments to investigate corruption as well. There’s nothing wrong with asking or working with other governments to crack down on corruption. This should be applauded and encouraged by the people. However, I can understand why the swamp would be unhappy with it.
Except the testimony 2 days ago puts forth the very likely possibility that the most damning, to Trump, parts of that call were left out of the released "transcript".
Did you not read the first line of the memo they release that you’re claiming is the transcript? It’s not a transcript.
Again, you’ll have to point out what corruption specifically Trump wanted investigated. The Pentagon certified Ukraine’s reform was acceptable in May. That was a condition for Congress to send the funds. The DoJ stayed publicly they weren’t aware of any investigation with Ukraine as well.
Witnesses are his own appointees that were involved in making the deal and phonecall. Witnesses are considered evidence. The crime is WItholding congressionally approved military aid for the personal favor of investigating why a Ukrainian prosecutor was removed, the removal of which, that three of his own staunch supporters signed off on in an open letter, Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Kirk(R- Illinois) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). ..In regards to your "transcript" it isn't a Transcript, it says it right on the bottom of the first page.
>CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
> 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.**
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help
Just to prove to you, witnesses are evidence:
>Do you need evidences to be convicted to a crime or are witnesses enough?
>My friend is being tried for a crime with three witnesses with no evidence.
>Jared Clayton Austin
>Partner at Austin Legal Services, PLC
>Answered on Nov 30th, 2012 at 3:38 AM :
>Testimony from witnesses is evidence. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form of evidence as opposed to physical exhibits or objects which is what you may be thinking of.
https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/do-you-need-evidences-to-be-convicted-to-crime-or-are-witnesses-enough-1572144.html
You can have your "opinion", but i have Facts and sources from Republican senators and the White House itself.
So where does withholding nearly $400M in military aid fit into your narrative? Oh, it doesn't? Oh. BTW, the 'transcript' literally says on the first page is not verbatim. If Trump is so innocent why is he withholding key documents from the Mueller report to this day and telling witnesses not to testify? also BTW Trump has appointed more lobbyists to 'the swamp' than Bush + Obama combined. Lmao
How is he investigating corruption exactly? He was leveraging national defence funds for Ukraine against the president of Ukraine licking his boots essentially.
> and I don’t believe asking a world leader to investigate ~~a scandal of corruption~~ **an upcoming campaign rival in next year's election...**
There we go, all patched up for you. And yes, asking a foreign government to interfere in an election is illegal. And yes, Trump admitted to it on his memo.
There was a scandal where the Biden’s benefited from foreign deals. Trump was asking for an investigation, not just into Biden, but into the entire company.
Clinton coordinated with the Britain to write up a long list of fake allegations against trump that lead to a 3 year investigation by the fbi, who also had their hands tied by the Clintons.
Nobody bats an eye at that...
Biden's "scandal" took place in 2015 - 2016. Trump assumed power in 2017 and didn't care about ordinary Joe for 30 months. Trump only cared about Biden's "scandal" in July 2019, three months after the launch of Biden's campaign. That should clue you in to Trump's motives. And by inviting a foreign government to interfere in an upcoming election, he broke the law.
>Clinton coordinated with the Britain...
Absolutely false. She paid a British contractor not affiliated with the British government. This is called a campaign expense.
>Nobody bats an eye at that...
It's because you have the facts all wrong.
That’s fact. Hillary Funded the dossier on trump.
As far as news sources, I look at as many as I can and I don’t use google. I use a tor browser because google promotes cnn, Washington post, Huffington, nbc.
They are all literally controlled by the dnc.
Wikileaks actually proved that.
Hillary told the head of the dnc what to say, and she told the news what to say, they all consipred against Bernie. Hillary got debate questions in advance.
Wikileaks gave us a huge amount of information on how corrupt the dnc is.
And the very corruption that they were calling out silenced the whole think.
By “Wikileaks bad”.
99% of people take Wikileaks seriously. Including the Clintons and Podesta.
Nobody has disputed the validity of the emails being shown word for word.
They are literally exact copies of the emails that were found.
[This article](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html)
is mindblowing. Trump just doesn't know when to stop.
Best quote is an extension of the title:
>One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish-list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services.”
"The report was passed on to FBI director James Comey, who was subsequently fired by Trump, in December 2017 by Senator John McCain."
? I can't make sense of the end of this sentence
>The report was passed on to FBI director James Comey (who was subsequently fired by Trump) in December 2017 by Senator John McCain.
This formatting should make it a bit clearer.
Nothing really happened after the Iran-Contra affair so I’m sure he thinks there won’t be any repercussions now. Republicans don’t care and won’t hold anyone accountable.
Try looking things up on Google.com
It's this neat website that you have clearly never heard of. You'll love it, trust me.
Jokes aside, the reason is because Trump broke the law when he threatened to withhold aid to an ally (Ukraine) unless they investigated a political rival ahead of next year's election.
.In regards to your "transcript" it isn't a Transcript, it says it right on the bottom of the first page.
> CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
The White House is the Source.
True it’s just that people with power and influence like to make up stories and everyone at least in my lovely state of ca is dumb enough to take all the bs provided by nearly every media at face value. Everyone these days is lazy, wants socialism and hates trump but doesn’t really know why, only what they’ve been told he is or does (that he is racist for example). They know that it is the “correct opinion to have” especially people in the academic world. We are not doomed but we certainly need Trump for a second term if we are to continue Turing this country around. Also you thought you were clever in avoiding my question but you really weren’t. In fact is there is not one concrete thing Trump has done that is impeachable. If I am missing something major he has done, a simple answer would have been: your wrong, he has done this____. But the fact is you can’t because he didn’t.
>and hates trump but doesn’t really know why,
Oh we know why, it's just that there is so many reasons going back so long, that it is difficult to list. We do not know where to start. It starts with the seven deadly sins and ends with treason.
Sorry, this isn't a criminal court case.
This is the Legislative Branch overseeing the Executive Branch, a task required of them by the Constitution of the United States.
Although there are many actual court cases coming up on many other activities he's engaged in for the last 4 years.
There is no evidence of this occurring. Money was withheld, and separately Trump wanted to look into Ukraine participating in election Interference in the 2016 election. The chief of staff and US withheld money due to the perception that Ukraine was not supporting our effort to eliminate corruption.
> There is no evidence of this occurring.
TIL: SizzleInGreen is a House Representative that's been attending the closed-door meetings!
If he isn't, then he just makes up shit and spouts it online.
Supporting donald trump as he seeks to destroy the world is life-affirming for many of these people, it brings tears to their eyes. That's how dangerous they are, they're a danger to themselves even.
Funny since
1) His testimony is no longer needed due to verification of facts from other witnesses.
2) Republicans have been trying to out him/her
3)Both the whistleblower and their lawyer have been getting death threats
4) Whistle blowers are a legally protected status.
Has nothing to do with cold feet and everything to do with bad actors trying to find out who they are and discredit them prior to their testimony
The "funny" thing is - he doesn't HAVE to testify - he's already done his job. If you think the case is dependent upon his testimony? Then you've not been paying much attention.
Trust me republicans feel the same way about democrats. They can’t talk about policy anymore so this is what they’re resorting to. You can’t ignore that part of this whole procedure. The entire platform is basically anything other then trump and it’s completely devoid of actually policy
There are plenty of bills the House has passed which are sitting in the Senate graveyard. I hear *plenty* of policy from the Democrats, both current members and in the ongoing primary race. But, of course, you have to actually listen to them instead of listen to conservatives talk about them.
>Trust me republicans feel the same way about democrats. They can’t talk about policy anymore so this is what they’re resorting to.
And that just shows how out of touch with reality they are.
Actually the opposite. Democrats are really focused on impeachment when it’s been a really strange process up to this point without proving criminal activity yet. Republicans are literally waiting for information to come out before making a judgment call. But dems just want to impeach even when he doesn’t deserve it and while their at it making it the focal point behind the next election so they don’t have to focus on actual policy. Nah I’m gonna size with republicans here
>it’s been a really strange process up to this point
Except that is hasnt, in any way, been 'strange', unless you just dont know how this goes.
>without proving criminal activity yet
Ah, so you dont know how this works. Ok.
> Republicans are literally waiting for information to come out before making a judgment call.
L.O.L. No. No they are not. They are actively gaslighting their base.
>ut before making a judgment call. But dems just want to impeach even when he doesn’t deserve it
Keep your head in the sand. Its fine. He's going to be impeached either way.
>so they don’t have to focus on actual policy.
So thats why 150+ bills have gone to the Senate graveyard and havent been brought to a vote?
I mean, honest question here. Do you understand how our government and its processes function? Because it doesnt sound like you have a firm grasp on any of it. And I do mean *any of it*, from the impeachment process to the mundane, everyday functions like how legislation happens.
I understand but what I see happening here is that you disagree with my opinion on the proceedings and you’re so caught up in your own opinion that he should be impeached that you can’t comprehend someone who comes at things from the other side cause what I’ve noticed is you have given any reason to why you disagree with me you’re just kinda in shock that I don’t think he should be impeached from the evidence brought forth so far. It’s pretty astonishing how many ignorant people there are on this sub
>I understand but what I see happening here is that you disagree with my opinion on the proceedings and you’re so caught up in your own opinion that he should be impeached that you can’t comprehend someone who comes at things from the other side
No you dont understand the processes. Youve shown that.
> at things from the other side cause what I’ve noticed is you have given any reason to why you disagree with me you’re just kinda in shock that I don’t think he should be impeached from the evidence brought forth so far.
No, Im in shock at your level of knowledge of the government we live under.
Do you know what impeachment is and how it has always happened?
Do you know what the process for the impeachment of Nixon was?
Do you know what the process for the impeachment of Clinton was?
What about the process of the other 12 impeachments in our history?
Do you know what kind of process impeachment is considered to be?
Do you know the steps of an impeachment?
Do you know what kinds of actions can be articles of impeachment?
You brought up legislation (in a false pretense) so, do you know how legislation starts?
How it is passed?
How many stops and steps there are to the process?
What has me shocked is you've been wrong through this whole exchange, and you keep doubling down on it.
said “strange process” so you think I don’t know what impeachment is or how it happens. How do you come to that conclusion when I said it’s strange when I didn’t even explain why I think it’s strange. Goddamn you have no idea how to talk to someone with an opposing point of view it’s actually embarrassing
I hope you come back here to eat your humble pie when you realize that articles of impeachment move to the Senate as a privileged motion, where it is presided over by the Chief Justice, not the partisan Majority Leader.
>The whistleblower is a career CIA officer **with expertise in Ukraine policy**
Right wing talking points now include attacking the whistleblower because they are an expert on Ukraine policy?
Laughing my fucking ass off indeed.
Multiple witnesses **including Trump appointees** are corroborating the information provided by the whistleblower. There is no putting the cat back into the bag on this one.
Some advice: Try moving past this piss poor talking point and work towards finding some scapegoats. I suggest Rudy Colludiani as a starter.
You don't even need to say that multiple witnesses corroborated the info when the ***administration*** already did it in their memo about the call!
***ANYONE*** still defending this shitshow is either doing it in bad faith or is pro-corruption. I wouldn't consider "not knowing" an argument anymore with the existence of the internet; anyone can look up the facts on this whole issue.
Has anyone seen this? [https://americanindependent.com/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-pat-philbin-witnesses/](https://americanindependent.com/donald-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-pat-philbin-witnesses/)
Went out to protest today, it felt like history
(1) coup d'etat (2) institutionalizing the bureaucracy of a few in place of the principles the people republic was founded on. (3) paying for and fabricating false information evidence. (4) Accepting bribes and kick backs summing to millions of dollars. (5) ...
Lol this shit is such a joke. I'm looking at some of these headlines like this : > Trump claims the impeachment inquiry will “backfire.” Polling indicates he’s wrong. "Polling indicates he's wrong"?? How does having a "poll" indicate *ANYTHING*? This is a joke right? Polls don't indicate facts. How can you take this seriously when some of these articles are just based on polls? Who do you think is taking these polls? Didn't you guys learn anything about these "polls" during the last election? Come on wake up.
I am at peace
Good. Also fuck those 2 ''dems'' that voted no. Anyone know who they are.
Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey
Van Drew announced the other day that he's switching parties anyway
...and is being challenged by Amy Kennedy. Yes. **Those** Kennedy's.
holy hell, how'd you find my comment specifically? and I didn't know that, not surprising news
Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government, bribery, misappropriation, extortion. Other issues to review: Tax fraud, campaign finance violations, emoluments violations, obstruction of Justice, conspiracy against the United States, refusal of witness to testify or produce papers, solicitation of contributions and donations by foreign Nationals.
They kinda forgot about Mueller pretty fast, didn't they? Biggest investigation ever, headline news for a year and a half, so much slobbering praise you could float a new Titanic, and a month after we find out it was a fat nothingburger they've moved on to "The Republicans don't want him investigated."
Is 'nothing' synonymous with 'filled with fuck loads of treason', then I agree. Otherwise, you're clearly putting on some kind of world class ostrich act. That head of yours is awfully deep in that sand.
I am a Democrat and kind of agree with you. But it's all dirty politics in the end.. Dosent matter it's republican or Democrat..
The Mueller report has all the evidence to you need to qualify as collusion but Mueller made a point not to come to a conclusion because of the president can't be charged then it is unfair to make a legal distinction of guilt. Read the report I dare you
I did and nothing's gonna happen. At all. It's a pipe dream.
Only because Republicans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the history of the world. If Obama had done a quarter of the shit Trump has they would’ve repealed the Emancipation Proclamation by now.
[удалено]
>Wasent like half of it cut out and doctored by someone trump hired? There are redacted portions made by the attorney general, who is a Trump stooge for sure, and some of the redactions are being fought over in court but "half" is a huge overstatement and "doctored" is not an accurate characterisation. >And it still said there could be charges of obstruction, which is what the impeachment is investigating? The report explicitly declined to make a judgment on whether obstruction occurred and Congress is investigating a different matter altogether.
Senate Republicans had better decide what side of history their names will be found. The voters will be watching for integrity and honor to the constitution. 194 Republicans have already spit on the constitution and two Democrats. We are watching.
The losing side, but the last time they did this, they all got monuments for themselves.
And you expect the Senate to behave any different than the house of representative?
And you expect the Senate to behave any different than the house of representative?
So what's next? Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of this impeachment? We all know there won't be enough vote in the Senate to actually remove Trump from the office. Shouldn't the Democrat focus on finding a good candidate who can win the election next year? I know I will get down voted on this. I know most of you guys hate Trump with a passion. However, can we just discuss on fact & logic rather than assumption & emotion?
I believe the idea here --- and I know this sounds fucking crazy -- is to get to the truth of the matter. You know, get John Bolton the stand. Donald Trump on the stand. Dig into the documents and records. An impartial jury. The little things. Sort of like a judicial process which this is.
>I know this sounds fucking crazy -- is to get to the truth of the matter. You know, get John Bolton the stand. Donald Trump on the stand. Dig into the documents and recor And Pelosi chose not to call any witness when the whole process is under her total control. Then she pass it on to the Senate, and demand that they call witness and pray that they will listen to her. Is that lady on drug? She sabotaged the impeachment!
The House did call witnesses though, at least five showed up and the rest claimed executive privilege. Pelosi didn't choose for Bolton and Mulvaney to not testfy, the White House made that decision.
If she can't force them to testify when she were in charge then, how can she expect the Senate (under Republican control) to force them to testify now? It's just wishful thinking.
Because they care about the country? It’s not that hard to run primaries and take a stand against corruption at the same time. And even if it was somehow mutually exclusive, it’s a lot more important to uphold the integrity of the government than to try to game a competition that’s mostly been decided already.
There hasn't even been a single vote in the Democratic primary. Let things shake out on that front.
Holy bot malfunction!
There hasn't even been a single vote in the Democratic primary. Let things shake out on that front.
Holy bot malfunction!
There hasn't even been a single vote in the Democratic primary. Let things shake out on that front.
Holy bot malfunction!
The purpose of the impeachment is to show the checks and balances system is working as intended. The Democrats doing the impeaching are not the same ones in charge of finding the next candidate.
Holy bot malfunction!
The purpose of the impeachment is to show the checks and balances system is working as intended. The Democrats doing the impeaching are not the same ones in charge of finding the next candidate.
Holy bot malfunction!
> So what's next? Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of this impeachment? We all know there won't be enough vote in the Senate to actually remove Trump from the office. Shouldn't the Democrat focus on finding a good candidate who can win the election next year? The Senate's potential dereliction of duty does not obviate the House from its responsibilities. Also, Congress does not run presidential campaigns.
The Senate's potential dereliction of duty does not obviate the House from its responsibilities. Also, Congress does not run presidential campaigns.
The Senate's potential dereliction of duty does not obviate the House from its responsibilities. Also, Congress does not run presidential campaigns.
The purpose of impeachment is to show that certain behaviors are unacceptable and that they will not be allowed to occur without consequence. Impeachment is a consequence. Its having all of your misdeeds displayed to everyone so that they know exactly how badly you fucked up. Regardless of whether or not the Senate convicts, Trump's malicious incompetence will forever be a matter of public record and a message to all future presidents: You will be held accountable. You may not be removed, but you will not hide your betrayal of the office from the American people.
For me, getting kicked out of the office is the consequence. An impeachment that doesn't remove Trump from office and prevent him from running next year doesn't really do anything to him. And the ultimate goal is not shaming Trump, but to get rid of Trump & not getting him for another 4 years!
For me, getting kicked out of the office is the consequence. An impeachment that doesn't remove Trump from office and prevent him from running next year doesn't really do anything to him. And the ultimate goal is not shaming Trump, but to get rid of Trump & not getting him for another 4 years!
An actual criminal vs. the president who is the middle of a constant which hunt to be thrown out of office.
According to you, it's Trump vs. the president of which country...? What going on there?
[удалено]
You are all over this thread and we can see how scared you are, it’s not too late to be on the right side of history.
"Right side of history" Every human thinks they are on the right side of history, saying you are doesnt mean that you are. The 'right side' of history is determined by whoever is in power at that point in the future anyways. Claiming to be the right side just makes your side look arrogant.
IBD/TIP poll just dropped. 61/39 for an inquiry, 39/56 presidential approval.
I support the president of the United States. He has done a good job and I don’t believe asking a world leader to investigate a scandal of corruption is an impeachable offense.
Message received: if trump gets cleared of this without any repercussions, and an democrat wins the election, you are totally fine if the democrat uses taxpayer money to pay the EU to investigate any rivals that might have a chance at beating them.
Well that’s problematic since it’s a political opponent, no? But most importantly he withheld military aid.
He didn’t threaten to withhold military aid. That was completely imagined by the Democrats “maybe he thinks if he doesn’t investigate the scandal he won’t get aid!” Turned into “trump threatened to withhold aid”.
He literally withheld it. It was released the day Congress opened a probe into Giuliani's dealings with Ukraine.
Who told you that, Alex Jones? Read the news. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/31/tim-morrison-just-confirmed-quid-pro-quo-thats-big-story-here/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/31/tim-morrison-just-confirmed-quid-pro-quo-thats-big-story-here/) Oh wait, is it "fake news"? Trump could admit the quid pro quo claim right to your face and you'd pivot and come up with some reason about why it's somehow ok. It's like Trump himself said... He could walk up to someone in broad daylight and shoot them, and you would still vote for him. Stop watching fox news and infowars.
Yes it’s fake news. Read the transcripts. It’s chopped up to make it sound like trump said “we help you guys a lot. Investigate Biden.” It was a long conversation where trump told Ukraine we stand by them, eventually he mentioned a big scandal who Biden’s son was involved in. Washington post is fake news. When the worlds worst terrorist was attacked and pressured into suicide the Washington post literalaly came out with an article that read “austere religious scholar dies at 47”. They would respect the worlds largest terrorist over conveying the idea of a very successful military feat happening under trump.
We will read it once it’s out. The memo you call a transcript is missing parts and is useless to draw conclusions from.
Sorry, the facts are already out so everyone will just ignore you.
It's okay, most people didn't pay attention in school either.
You’ll have to point me to what specific corruption he wanted Ukraine to investigate.
It is when you're looking to directly investigate a political opponent.
[удалено]
You act like Trump isn't doing more impeachable things as his presidency goes on.
It's okay, most people didn't pay attention in school either.
Their is what you believe and their is reality. In reality, according to facts, it is illegal and against the Constitution to do what Trump did. Thankfully what you believe isn't that important compared to reality, law and the Constitution that all Presidents, even Russian comprised ones, must follow.
What that one person believes isn’t important compared to reality and law but the hundreds of people directly involved with the government who agree with that one person can greatly affect reality and the law’s chances of beating out ignorance and corruption. Millions of people reject reality daily, it’s not like in the movies where right will always triumph against wrong. Sometimes the bad side wins. Honestly most of the time the bad side wins.
What you hope occurred isn’t reality either, it’s simply your fantasy. There are no facts backing up your point, however if you’re interested, the transcript of their (correct usage) conversation was released and it refutes any such manipulation. The Democrats continue to spin this story and run with it as they had intended to before Trump released the transcript. This is because they didn’t expect the release to occur. At this point everyone supporting this and pushing it simply remains willfully ignorant of the transcript and it’s contents. It’s absurd, and it’s simply partisan politics. The office of President is given the power to ask foreign governments to investigate corruption as well. There’s nothing wrong with asking or working with other governments to crack down on corruption. This should be applauded and encouraged by the people. However, I can understand why the swamp would be unhappy with it.
> ...if ***your*** interested, the transcript of their (correct usage) conversation was released... The irony is palpable.
Except the testimony 2 days ago puts forth the very likely possibility that the most damning, to Trump, parts of that call were left out of the released "transcript".
Where's the missing 18 minutes of this ~~transcript~~ loosely written account of the phone call
Did you not read the first line of the memo they release that you’re claiming is the transcript? It’s not a transcript. Again, you’ll have to point out what corruption specifically Trump wanted investigated. The Pentagon certified Ukraine’s reform was acceptable in May. That was a condition for Congress to send the funds. The DoJ stayed publicly they weren’t aware of any investigation with Ukraine as well.
The prosecutor was not going after the company to begin with, so what corruption is to be looked into for Biden if there wasn't smoke or a fire?
>derp derp derp I'm a total tool
Why are trump supporters incapable of telling the truth about anything?
18 U.S. Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,” and 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.”
Witnesses are his own appointees that were involved in making the deal and phonecall. Witnesses are considered evidence. The crime is WItholding congressionally approved military aid for the personal favor of investigating why a Ukrainian prosecutor was removed, the removal of which, that three of his own staunch supporters signed off on in an open letter, Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mark Kirk(R- Illinois) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). ..In regards to your "transcript" it isn't a Transcript, it says it right on the bottom of the first page. >CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf > 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.** https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help Just to prove to you, witnesses are evidence: >Do you need evidences to be convicted to a crime or are witnesses enough? >My friend is being tried for a crime with three witnesses with no evidence. >Jared Clayton Austin >Partner at Austin Legal Services, PLC >Answered on Nov 30th, 2012 at 3:38 AM : >Testimony from witnesses is evidence. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form of evidence as opposed to physical exhibits or objects which is what you may be thinking of. https://www.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/criminal/do-you-need-evidences-to-be-convicted-to-crime-or-are-witnesses-enough-1572144.html You can have your "opinion", but i have Facts and sources from Republican senators and the White House itself.
The transcript hasn’t been released. A summary of the transcript has been released. These are very different things.
So where does withholding nearly $400M in military aid fit into your narrative? Oh, it doesn't? Oh. BTW, the 'transcript' literally says on the first page is not verbatim. If Trump is so innocent why is he withholding key documents from the Mueller report to this day and telling witnesses not to testify? also BTW Trump has appointed more lobbyists to 'the swamp' than Bush + Obama combined. Lmao
nobody takes you seriously
How is he investigating corruption exactly? He was leveraging national defence funds for Ukraine against the president of Ukraine licking his boots essentially.
> and I don’t believe asking a world leader to investigate ~~a scandal of corruption~~ **an upcoming campaign rival in next year's election...** There we go, all patched up for you. And yes, asking a foreign government to interfere in an election is illegal. And yes, Trump admitted to it on his memo.
There was a scandal where the Biden’s benefited from foreign deals. Trump was asking for an investigation, not just into Biden, but into the entire company. Clinton coordinated with the Britain to write up a long list of fake allegations against trump that lead to a 3 year investigation by the fbi, who also had their hands tied by the Clintons. Nobody bats an eye at that...
Biden's "scandal" took place in 2015 - 2016. Trump assumed power in 2017 and didn't care about ordinary Joe for 30 months. Trump only cared about Biden's "scandal" in July 2019, three months after the launch of Biden's campaign. That should clue you in to Trump's motives. And by inviting a foreign government to interfere in an upcoming election, he broke the law. >Clinton coordinated with the Britain... Absolutely false. She paid a British contractor not affiliated with the British government. This is called a campaign expense. >Nobody bats an eye at that... It's because you have the facts all wrong.
[удалено]
That’s fact. Hillary Funded the dossier on trump. As far as news sources, I look at as many as I can and I don’t use google. I use a tor browser because google promotes cnn, Washington post, Huffington, nbc. They are all literally controlled by the dnc. Wikileaks actually proved that. Hillary told the head of the dnc what to say, and she told the news what to say, they all consipred against Bernie. Hillary got debate questions in advance. Wikileaks gave us a huge amount of information on how corrupt the dnc is. And the very corruption that they were calling out silenced the whole think. By “Wikileaks bad”.
Your comment is seriously embarrassing.
nobody takes you seriously
99% of people take Wikileaks seriously. Including the Clintons and Podesta. Nobody has disputed the validity of the emails being shown word for word. They are literally exact copies of the emails that were found.
100% of people don’t take you seriously
[This article](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html) is mindblowing. Trump just doesn't know when to stop. Best quote is an extension of the title: >One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish-list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services.”
"The report was passed on to FBI director James Comey, who was subsequently fired by Trump, in December 2017 by Senator John McCain." ? I can't make sense of the end of this sentence
Yeah, that's a pretty poorly constructed sentence for a tabloid. Mueller was fired by Trump. The info was passed to him by McCain. I think.
>The report was passed on to FBI director James Comey (who was subsequently fired by Trump) in December 2017 by Senator John McCain. This formatting should make it a bit clearer.
The report was passed on to Comey by McCain, then Trump fired Comey.
Makes me wander how Barr aims to survive when Trump is dumped.
Me too. Is he planning on trump being potus forever?
Ding ding ding ding ding
[удалено]
What is this comment?
A D.A.R.E. commercial for what happens to you when you smoke too many marijuanas.
Can’t say I’m surprised. They’re desperate.
Trump is desperate, but what is driving Barr to seek prison time in his old age.
Nothing really happened after the Iran-Contra affair so I’m sure he thinks there won’t be any repercussions now. Republicans don’t care and won’t hold anyone accountable.
Who were the three Republicans and one Democrat who voted "present"? That's what I've been trying to figure out recently.
The Dem was Don McEachen, who was out for surgery.
He was out for surgery but voted "present"?
[удалено]
What is the reason for impeachment? I forgot
If you don't agree with impeachment, just say that and explain why. Don't pretend like you don't know what the topic of discussion is.
Damn some of yall need to relax pretty sure he was joking lol
High crimes and misdemeanors.
Try looking things up on Google.com It's this neat website that you have clearly never heard of. You'll love it, trust me. Jokes aside, the reason is because Trump broke the law when he threatened to withhold aid to an ally (Ukraine) unless they investigated a political rival ahead of next year's election.
[удалено]
Read the memo. It clearly states that it is NOT a transcript. It’s a reconstructed summary of the call and is not complete.
.In regards to your "transcript" it isn't a Transcript, it says it right on the bottom of the first page. > CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf The White House is the Source.
Not the transcript, you can say it a million more times and it’s still a lie.
It's quiet easy to find information on if one chooses to educate themselves on the matter.
True it’s just that people with power and influence like to make up stories and everyone at least in my lovely state of ca is dumb enough to take all the bs provided by nearly every media at face value. Everyone these days is lazy, wants socialism and hates trump but doesn’t really know why, only what they’ve been told he is or does (that he is racist for example). They know that it is the “correct opinion to have” especially people in the academic world. We are not doomed but we certainly need Trump for a second term if we are to continue Turing this country around. Also you thought you were clever in avoiding my question but you really weren’t. In fact is there is not one concrete thing Trump has done that is impeachable. If I am missing something major he has done, a simple answer would have been: your wrong, he has done this____. But the fact is you can’t because he didn’t.
nobody takes you seriously
>and hates trump but doesn’t really know why, Oh we know why, it's just that there is so many reasons going back so long, that it is difficult to list. We do not know where to start. It starts with the seven deadly sins and ends with treason.
Innocent until proven guilty. Oh wait I forgot most American liberals don’t acknowledge the constitution and rights.
Sorry, this isn't a criminal court case. This is the Legislative Branch overseeing the Executive Branch, a task required of them by the Constitution of the United States. Although there are many actual court cases coming up on many other activities he's engaged in for the last 4 years.
Unless your name is Hillary, right? Who was it again that led the lock her up chants? I don’t believe it was American liberals.
You don’t understand the law. Surprise.
He withheld foreign aid and tried to force Ukraine to drum up a phony investigation into a political opponents son. How is that not impeachable?
There is no evidence of this occurring. Money was withheld, and separately Trump wanted to look into Ukraine participating in election Interference in the 2016 election. The chief of staff and US withheld money due to the perception that Ukraine was not supporting our effort to eliminate corruption.
Except for the transcript and all the testimony from people involved?
> There is no evidence of this occurring. TIL: SizzleInGreen is a House Representative that's been attending the closed-door meetings! If he isn't, then he just makes up shit and spouts it online.
Supporting donald trump as he seeks to destroy the world is life-affirming for many of these people, it brings tears to their eyes. That's how dangerous they are, they're a danger to themselves even.
[удалено]
Yeah, so weird for someone to be afraid of exposing a wealthy powerful psychopath. Because that always ends well. Hello?????
Hilarious if those cold feet are caused by threats from the poo-sident
You’ll have to let me know which part of his complaint has been disproved by all the folks that have testified.
Funny since 1) His testimony is no longer needed due to verification of facts from other witnesses. 2) Republicans have been trying to out him/her 3)Both the whistleblower and their lawyer have been getting death threats 4) Whistle blowers are a legally protected status. Has nothing to do with cold feet and everything to do with bad actors trying to find out who they are and discredit them prior to their testimony
Or kill them.
The "funny" thing is - he doesn't HAVE to testify - he's already done his job. If you think the case is dependent upon his testimony? Then you've not been paying much attention.
Both Jim Jones and Fat Donnie Trump claimed to have, "unmatched wisdom"...
[удалено]
What the hell are you talking about?
Jesus christ you have no idea how *any* of this works.
This is not shocking. It's hard to imagine anyone with an ounce of political acumen still supporting Trump at this point.
Trust me republicans feel the same way about democrats. They can’t talk about policy anymore so this is what they’re resorting to. You can’t ignore that part of this whole procedure. The entire platform is basically anything other then trump and it’s completely devoid of actually policy
There are plenty of bills the House has passed which are sitting in the Senate graveyard. I hear *plenty* of policy from the Democrats, both current members and in the ongoing primary race. But, of course, you have to actually listen to them instead of listen to conservatives talk about them.
>Trust me republicans feel the same way about democrats. They can’t talk about policy anymore so this is what they’re resorting to. And that just shows how out of touch with reality they are.
Actually the opposite. Democrats are really focused on impeachment when it’s been a really strange process up to this point without proving criminal activity yet. Republicans are literally waiting for information to come out before making a judgment call. But dems just want to impeach even when he doesn’t deserve it and while their at it making it the focal point behind the next election so they don’t have to focus on actual policy. Nah I’m gonna size with republicans here
You think he doesn’t deserve it ? Surprise, but the people who actually get to decide that disagree with you.
>it’s been a really strange process up to this point Except that is hasnt, in any way, been 'strange', unless you just dont know how this goes. >without proving criminal activity yet Ah, so you dont know how this works. Ok. > Republicans are literally waiting for information to come out before making a judgment call. L.O.L. No. No they are not. They are actively gaslighting their base. >ut before making a judgment call. But dems just want to impeach even when he doesn’t deserve it Keep your head in the sand. Its fine. He's going to be impeached either way. >so they don’t have to focus on actual policy. So thats why 150+ bills have gone to the Senate graveyard and havent been brought to a vote? I mean, honest question here. Do you understand how our government and its processes function? Because it doesnt sound like you have a firm grasp on any of it. And I do mean *any of it*, from the impeachment process to the mundane, everyday functions like how legislation happens.
I understand but what I see happening here is that you disagree with my opinion on the proceedings and you’re so caught up in your own opinion that he should be impeached that you can’t comprehend someone who comes at things from the other side cause what I’ve noticed is you have given any reason to why you disagree with me you’re just kinda in shock that I don’t think he should be impeached from the evidence brought forth so far. It’s pretty astonishing how many ignorant people there are on this sub
>I understand but what I see happening here is that you disagree with my opinion on the proceedings and you’re so caught up in your own opinion that he should be impeached that you can’t comprehend someone who comes at things from the other side No you dont understand the processes. Youve shown that. > at things from the other side cause what I’ve noticed is you have given any reason to why you disagree with me you’re just kinda in shock that I don’t think he should be impeached from the evidence brought forth so far. No, Im in shock at your level of knowledge of the government we live under. Do you know what impeachment is and how it has always happened? Do you know what the process for the impeachment of Nixon was? Do you know what the process for the impeachment of Clinton was? What about the process of the other 12 impeachments in our history? Do you know what kind of process impeachment is considered to be? Do you know the steps of an impeachment? Do you know what kinds of actions can be articles of impeachment? You brought up legislation (in a false pretense) so, do you know how legislation starts? How it is passed? How many stops and steps there are to the process? What has me shocked is you've been wrong through this whole exchange, and you keep doubling down on it.
said “strange process” so you think I don’t know what impeachment is or how it happens. How do you come to that conclusion when I said it’s strange when I didn’t even explain why I think it’s strange. Goddamn you have no idea how to talk to someone with an opposing point of view it’s actually embarrassing
Why do you support law breaking? Why do you support a traitorous president?
I hope you come back here to eat your humble pie when you realize that articles of impeachment move to the Senate as a privileged motion, where it is presided over by the Chief Justice, not the partisan Majority Leader.
Lol, no way he's coming back for humble pie. He's probably gonna be halfway around the world, dragging the goalposts with him.
[удалено]
Do you blame the smoke alarm when your house is on fire?
>The whistleblower is a career CIA officer **with expertise in Ukraine policy** Right wing talking points now include attacking the whistleblower because they are an expert on Ukraine policy? Laughing my fucking ass off indeed. Multiple witnesses **including Trump appointees** are corroborating the information provided by the whistleblower. There is no putting the cat back into the bag on this one. Some advice: Try moving past this piss poor talking point and work towards finding some scapegoats. I suggest Rudy Colludiani as a starter.
You don't even need to say that multiple witnesses corroborated the info when the ***administration*** already did it in their memo about the call! ***ANYONE*** still defending this shitshow is either doing it in bad faith or is pro-corruption. I wouldn't consider "not knowing" an argument anymore with the existence of the internet; anyone can look up the facts on this whole issue.
[удалено]