Impeachment

US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden - CNNPolitics

 

Did Obama ever withhold millions in appropriated funds from someone from whom he demanded favors? Did he fire ambassadors who followed protocol and replace the with folks who would let him conduct foreign policy for benefit of his friends and contributors? Is it OK to demand personal political benefit for release of lawfully appropriated funds?

 

It's pretty transparent that to Trump "draining the swamp" means destroying ecologically valuable wetlands so he and his cronies can get cheap land to build condos and golf resorts. The G7 on one of his properties was a trial balloon to see how much corruption a majority of his base will tolerate. I guess their tolerance, while vast, is less than infinite.

 

When he gathers with his buddies Putin, Edrogan, Kim and Muhamed Bin Salman he'll be 1 down because he has less authority over his country.

 

I can’t wait until they get the encrypted messages. I wonder how many other trump folks are communicating in these things.

 

Rep. Matt Gaetz didn't participate in the testimony that I'm aware of since he doesn't sit on any of the 3 committees pursuing the impeachment inquiry. He tried to attend a week or 2 ago and was turned away and made a stink about it.

In turn, I'm not sure how he can speak to any of Taylor's testimony today.

 

Did Ken Starr release the interview transcripts of the depositions he took with 141 Clinton admin officials simultaneously while interviewing them?

 

The media and DOJ covered up for Obama, so we'll never know. His wingman Holder probably helped when he did those things as well.

 

Got anything that resembles a reference?

Must have missed Holder running around as a one man vigilante posse.

 

Nah, I can throw out theories based on Holder's wingman comment and observations of the media and the texts from Strzok and Page all day just like what gets thrown out there about Trump.

I do like your football comments.

 

I think what happens in the House is analogous to an indictment proceeding: "Is there enough evidence of a crime to go to trial in the Senate?"

 

I'm guessing you grew up in a household where "Barry did it too" was complete exoneration and maybe in a pinch "Barry probably did it too, but his parents were too unnobservant to notice" would mitigate punishment? That stuff didn't help with my mamma.

 

That was a special prosecutor situation like Mueller. It did lead to impeachment like what the crazy Russia collusionists hoped.

 

The, "they did it too" arguments are intended to high-light the hypocrisy of which there is more than enough to go around.

 

This thread does not show up when you go to West Mall. What's up with that?

 

stick to the mantra...NQPQ. by the way, who woulda thunk Giuliani was friends with the Sausage King.

 

Pretty certain that members who sat on the committee told him that. Guys like Zeldin and Meadows,

 

It's not the same and you know it. The steps you'll take to buy into this ******** democrat hearing is amazing.

 

How is it different? I expect at some point we will get a document similar to this one: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105hhrg52320/pdf/CHRG-105hhrg52320.pdf It won't look too good for your boy. Trump's deeds are much higher crimes that not being truthful about an affair. That said, I blame Clinton, Newt and Kenn Starr for the growth of Al-Q because he was hamstrung by this stupid 5 year investigation over nothing.

 

So you support another special prosecutor? If not, then we'll have to accept that the House is the investgation arm, like the Constitution lays out. Ironically, "special prosecutor" isn't as constitutionally supported as the HoP conducting the investigation. The latter is literally written into the constituition.

At this point, the Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to depose the witnesses. The only valid gripe is the Republicans can't subpoena their own witnesses.

Schiff claims that public hearings will be held after these closed depositions. Time will tell whether that holds true.

Keep in mind, the due process of any Impeachment hearing is specifically designed to be done in the Senate which is where the trial occurs.

 

Holy ****! One's a special prosecutor doing an investigation and the other isn't. What they are doing is keeping everything secret behind closed doors and releasing democrat talking points without the full story to a press who's eager to give it out to the masses. You're getting played and you don't even know it.

 

Uhhh...the link I posted was to the Congressional hearing. I bet that did not come out until after they voted on impeachment.

 

Remember Trump taking the oath of the office was an impeachable offense and an abuse of power. So there!

 

Strawman argument.

 

So are any Trump supporters queasy or disturbed by his erratic decision-making and request for favors from Ukraine while withholding appropriated funds? I'm asking because I don't think anyone on this forum defended Hillary on her email scandal and I did criticize her for it. I'll admit whether this is impeachable is a debatable question. Whether it meets the moral and ethical standards we should accept from a president … how can anyone defend it?

 

Both former President Poroshenko and current Pres Zelensky said neither felt pressured by Trump .

 

If they didn't feel pressure, they are really dumb.

 

That works, You don't like the answer they give so just insult them.

 

Actually, if they said they "felt pressure" from a man who would have no compunction about treacherously betraying them (look what has happened to the Kurds) then that would be dumb. I don't think they are dumb.

 

Wow You are really scrambling. The mafia example was flat out silly.

and what motive did the former President have to lie?