Can Anyone Explain?

yeah.... Trump definitely wins. Just as a reference, compare that to 18 identified unique lies during the whole 8 years of the Obama administration. And Republicans were up in arms about each and every one of the 18. Now it sounds laughable.

 

I had a feeling you were a "counter". I would rather have someone working for me who lied and got the job done to perfection (Trump) than someone working for me who lied and was incompetent (Obama).

 

If the investigation shows that the U.S. President was essentially blackmailing the Ukrainian President by demanding "proof" of a conspiracy theory and/or dirt on a political opponent, it could be construed as a "high crime and misdemeanor" and grounds for impeachment.

 

Do you really believe that? LOL

 

Problem with that is that you haven't realized that, included in those 13400 lies, is the lie that the guy is actually "doing his job". Unless you consider personal profit and pressuring other countries to make up dirt on his opponents "his job".

 

I don't have to "believe".... I research. Read my sig.

 

If, if, if. Yeah, the dems have a strong case. If pigs had wings they could fly.
Read the transcript and talk to the Ukrainian President for your answer to remove your if. So why investigate? Like I said, it's just to try to damage Trump.

 

Two reasons. Trump said something (what does not matter much here) AND they hate Trump. Must be a way to use that as a political weapon....

 

The lie was that the "transcript" showed that Donald Trump was demanding dirt on Joe Biden before he released military aid. That was the reason that was reported when Pelosi first announced the "impeachment inquiry."

Then the transcripts came out, and your side declared that proof of the quid pro quo charge. So now weeks later, you are dismissing it, as if it never mattered at all.

For someone who claims to be an empiricist, you seem to have your beliefs determined more by your hope and faith than the actual documented evidence that we have available. I expect, just like with Russia collusion, you'll promise me the evidence is on the way, and it will never arrive.

 

I appreciate the dodge.

Those who have read even the "transcript" (which isn't a transcript) with any kind of standards or objectivity should be disturbed. It isn't okay to abuse your office for personal favors, no matter how much you try to spin it.

The longer the GOP charade of half-assed defenses go on, the more damage to the GOP, which has already made it clear that it now stands for little more than Executive overreach.

 

The man who received the call didn't have a problem with the call. Or are you talking about VP Joe Biden?

 

I haven't seen anything saying he didn't have any problem whatsoever with the call . . . and even if he did, we don't ask people who are being extorted if they feel like they are being extorted, for obvious reasons.

Try actually reading the so-called "transcript." It doesn't take a genius to see the problems.

 

The Ukrainian president's answer was reported in the news at the same time the democrats were saying Trump put pressure on the man. It was all part of the same story, you know, report both sides. I guess your news station edited that part out from you. But you seem to be able to read people's state of mind and know how people will answer questions when being extorted? You are good.

"Actually reading". The transcript is "so call" in your mind. It was transcribed by a committee who each took notes. But I guess you can read their minds and know it doesn't represent the phone call? Trust me I did actually read the transcript, but you can see in my mind I'm lying? You are wrong. Some folks say they see nothing wrong and some say they do. Opinions abound. Ho hum. I humbly suggest you back off and take a wider view of what's going on. You do realize Trump was targeted for impeachment the day he was sworn in. What the hell are these people thinking?​

 

Because all the evidence you omitted points to a potential abuse of power for personal gain, and explaining would take more than one sentence.

 

Yeah, I bet it would take you a lot of sentences to explain.
This whole scenario is being carried out by the democrats to try and damage President Trump. There you have it, a one sentence explanation.

 

The problem is that none of this makes sense to a great many people. A potential abuse of power for personal gain? Do you think all those millionaires in congress earned their money by moonlighting as stock brokers?

There is going to be a use of power in order to win the election. This is what Pelosi is doing by formalizing the impeachment hearings. She's using her power as speaker to try and get a democrat into the oval office. If Trump asks for dirt on Biden, he's not abusing the power he has as President. He is using it to his advantage.

My personal beef in all of this, and one the left refuses to deal with, is that they are trying to create a protected class called "political rival" and saying that they can't be investigated. Nonsense!

 

in a nutshell... so many dems are so butthurt over november 2016 so they are seeking retribution by railroading trump & the gop & all the repub conservatives that voted for him...

 

No one is saying that Biden or Biden's son could not have been investigated IF there was any evidence they had done anything to be investigated FOR. Just being Biden's son was probably the reason Hunter Biden got the extremely lucrative job in the first place but just getting the job that way is not illegal. (as Jaden and Ivanka are sure to agree). Joe Biden helped to get rid of a prosecutor who was not prosecuting people suspected of political corruption. He was proud of that because it's pretty far from illegal in itself and would have been absolutely the wrong thing to do had Hunter been corrupt. So there was no evidence that either of the Bidens were doing anything wrong and it is is illegal to investigate people for no reason other than they are political rivals if you are a public official acting in your public capacity.

No-one is saying that Trump could not have hired private investigators to investigate the Bidens. I believe the RNC could have done the same thing, no one is saying anyone couldn't have done that, but a public official cannot use his office to investigate anyone without legal cause for ANY reason and particularly not for his own personal, and especially not his political, gain. Fer Crissake, that's what political corruption IS.

Nancy Pelosi may indeed profit greatly in a political sense out of this impeachment, (and I hope she does) but she is doing her job she, she is trying to bring a suspected malefactor to justice. She is NOT impeaching Trump for no legal reason at all. There is PLENTY of legal evidence against Trump, how valid that evidence may be is for the impeachment to decide but it is there.

Oh, and we are not even mentioning that Trump was BRIBING this President to do this with your tax dollars, Being a Trumper I'm sure you're perfectly alright with Trump using your taxes to buy Hookers and Blow for the entire RNC, but please excuse me if I object to my money being used to secure his next attempt to take over the government and destroy the nation I live in.

 

Why would Trump spend his own money?

No, there's no need for a legal cause to investigate. I don't know where you pulled that out from, but I'm guessing it's not going to be sterile. Investigations do not need a legal basis, as this impeachment proves. A legal cause to investigate?

lol!!!! Just no. That's ridiculous. What you need the law for is when it becomes a matter for the courts. Then you need a legal reason to prosecute.

 

"I would like you to do us a favor though." Top of page 3, https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...elensky/4b228f51-17e7-45bc-b16c-3b2643f3fbe0/

Reader will also find this in the transcript of the July 25 call.

Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

A lot of people, including Trump himself, have overlooked that part of the phone call.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied chief of staff Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

Perhaps I answered your question.

 

I think that you have your time line wrong. First we heard that there was a whistle blower, who claimed that in a telephone call to the president of the Ukrainian, that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on the Bidens or else he would hold up hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. The next day or so, the White House released an incomplete transcript of the telephone call, but left in enough to make it obvious what was going on. Then Mick Mulvaney went on national television and admitted what they were doing, saying they did it all the time, telling the reporters to get over it. Then we have had a series of diplomats who have given testimony, under oath, essentially confirming what the whistle blower had claimed, and more.

At the same time, two of Trump's operatives were caught and arrested for funneling Russian money into Trump's campaign.

Trump got caught with the smoking gun in his hand. The evidence is already here. If you watch something other than FOX, in the next few weeks you will be able to see people, people who were in on the call, telling, under oath, what Trump did. Trump is blocking others from testifying. I suppose he is trying to minimize the damning testimony that has been showing Trump to be the corrupt jerk we always knew he was.

 

Somehow ya all missed the election of 2018 when a majority of American voters elected a sizable majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives. I suppose, come 2021 and ya all will still be going on about the election of 2016, when Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3,000,000 votes.

 

Maybe you're right. He talks of himself in the third person which is really weird. He's not some common guy, and well... he wouldn't have been my first choice if the other choices had been palatable.

From my end of the field, I wish you had something. I just don't think you do. I think that democrats are even worse than Trump. They don't have anybody who is sane, so I guess I'll be forced to vote for a guy who I don't think much of, but that's how things are at the end of the day.

Which one of these morons is the stupidest? That's how I will vote.

 

This is so way past the whistle-blower.

 

Which is a bald faced lie.

There is nothing wrong with a Quid Pro Quo they are the currency of foreign policy. Trump did NOTHING that even approached Joe Biden's threat to withhold a $Billion in aid if a foreign government's prosecutor wasn't released in 6 hours. And Ukraine fired him and got the $Billion. Trump released the $300M and added another $140M to it, even though Ukraine never opened an investigation on the Biden's. When you folks try to explain how what Biden did WASN'T a Quid Pro Quo, but what Trump did, was, how do you picture that working out at the Senate Trial?

More Fake News Lies. Give me a link to the transcript where ANYONE has testified that Trump asked Ukraine "to dig up dirt on Biden".

I call bullshit, link to the transcripts please.

The Cowardly Whistleblower and ‘Anonymous’ Must Go Public.

Since the election of Donald Trump, the American public has been subject to a non-stop barrage of leaked news, almost all of it completely inaccurate or so far out of context that it might as well be.

In the years leading up to the Mueller report, we were told by a myriad of media outlets and supposedly well-informed politicians that evidence of Trump-Russia collusion was imminent. It never appeared, although journalists from the Washington Post and the New York Times won Pulitzers for proclaiming that very thing based on sources that were—what else—anonymous. These journalists were not reporters, as we know the word, but conduits for leakers in our intelligence agencies and FBI with rusty axes to grind. It was these leakers who actually deserved the Pulitzer prizes, such as they were. The journalists were just their secretaries.

Now we have before us more accusations from two sources who are again anonymous—the whistleblower, whose name is an open D.C. secret and Mr. or Ms. "anonymous," whose book entitled A Warning will be appearing in a few days.

This second "anonymous" is the same "anonymous" whose op-ed, despairing of "chaos" in the Trump administration, appeared under the name—what else again—"anonymous" in the New York Times some time back. Courageous, no? A real muckraker... Oh, wait. The muckrakers—Upton Sinclair, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell—wrote under their own names.