About those articles of impeachment

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

No, the House inquiry brought witnesses that assumed or speculated on what Trump wanted. Only one witness spoke directly with the President, and that was Ambassador Sondland. In Sondland's testimony, Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and wanted nothing in return from Zelensky.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The articles of impeachment will die in the senate. Trump will still be president and likely win a second term. This impeachment is backfiring on the democrats.

So..........you believe congressional Dems should not have pursued the impeachment of Don because Senate Repubs have already indicated they have no interest in the facts of the case? You know that sounds crazy, right?

All the facts were already presented, and there were very few facts. The commies ran the proceedings in their clown show, and now it's in the Senates determination how their proceeding will be conducted in their chamber.

 

[berg80]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

No, the House inquiry brought witnesses that assumed or speculated on what Trump wanted. Only one witness spoke directly with the President, and that was Ambassador Sondland. In Sondland's testimony, Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and wanted nothing in return from Zelensky.

This testimony?
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo - CNN Video

 

[berg80]

All the facts were already presented,

Nope. For example, Bolton says he has info not currently public. Not to mention new facts have come to light since the House inquiry ended. In part due to Trump's obstruction of the inquiry.

New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All the facts were already presented,

Nope. For example, Bolton says he has info not currently public. Not to mention new facts have come to light since the House inquiry ended. In part due to Trump's obstruction of the inquiry.

New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial
New Ukraine revelations hang over impeachment trial

So what you're saying is the Dems Fd up and now want the Senate to fix it? Typical.

No, there is no real new information out there, and the Senate is not going to force Bolton to testify on behalf of the Democrats even though Bolton said he would if asked.

You had your chance, and you blew it. You can't repair a car tire with a two inch hole in it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

No, the House inquiry brought witnesses that assumed or speculated on what Trump wanted. Only one witness spoke directly with the President, and that was Ambassador Sondland. In Sondland's testimony, Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and wanted nothing in return from Zelensky.

This testimony?
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo - CNN Video

He said the President told him NO quid pro quo.

 

[Jitss617]

These are articles of trump derangement syndrome..
Trump is still your president Trump will probably be your president until 2029 because you have Obstructed his first four years

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, 17 witnesses have already testified. All the evidence they presented points to Trump's unequivocal guilt.

I can see this is way over your head. One of the witnesses (Sondland) testified that he PRESUMED and never once observed Trump make any such statement. Others were gossip witnesses that PRESUMED of their own accord on second and third hand information and one other just made shit up with the help of Lyin Schiff and his staff prior to submitting a whistle blowers complaint..

Your too ignorant or just plain obtuse to even grasp the level of fail you all got going on here..

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

No, the House inquiry brought witnesses that assumed or speculated on what Trump wanted. Only one witness spoke directly with the President, and that was Ambassador Sondland. In Sondland's testimony, Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and wanted nothing in return from Zelensky.

This testimony?
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo - CNN Video

LOL... You forgot to post up the recantmant in the next session where he clarified his remarks... Funny how you omit that from your fantasy...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

No, the House inquiry brought witnesses that assumed or speculated on what Trump wanted. Only one witness spoke directly with the President, and that was Ambassador Sondland. In Sondland's testimony, Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, and wanted nothing in return from Zelensky.

This testimony?
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo
Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo - CNN Video

He said the President told him NO quid pro quo.

You beat me to it on both counts...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Article Two (Obstruction of Congress) was summarily destroyed by SCOTUS before it was even written. As democrats refused to use Judaical recourse, to get compliance with their subpoenas, this one was dead before it was born.

This should be a very short trial as there is no evidence of any of their 'so called' crimes..

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

Where has anyone proven, including the transcript, that trump did it for personal reasons, and to help his campaign?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

Where has anyone proven, including the transcript, that trump did it for personal reasons, and to help his campaign?

They haven't... Its all ASSUMPTIONS AND SUBJECTIVE thought... There are no facts to support it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

Where has anyone proven, including the transcript, that trump did it for personal reasons, and to help his campaign?

They haven't... Its all ASSUMPTIONS AND SUBJECTIVE thought... There are no facts to support it.

These Democrats are so selfish they don't even care about the damage they've done to this nation for power. Thanks to them, no foreign leader will ever discuss matters of importance over the phone to the White House. The impeachment war is now on, and from this point on, every time there is a President with a House of opposite leadership, there is going to be an impeachment.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the Democrats are a party-first/ country-second party. All they care about is power at any cost.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, your post actually proved this whole thing has been a political stunt from the beginning.

The articles of impeachment specifically say trump asked the ukraine for help for the purpose of helping his campaign. This has never been proven, and shows the dems are using the constitution as a weapon against a president.

The transcript proves it unequivocally. Not to mention we know from witness testimony during the House inquiry whose idea it was to put the hold on Ukraine aid and why it was done.

Where has anyone proven, including the transcript, that trump did it for personal reasons, and to help his campaign?

They haven't... Its all ASSUMPTIONS AND SUBJECTIVE thought... There are no facts to support it.

And that's my point.

Ok, look at it like this. Sure, there are some things that , on appearance, look bad, and I'll be honest, I cant say there werent some things done wrong, the fact is, I dont know, and neither does anyone else. I'm in the camp that if he did do these things, we need to know about it. However, what the dems are doing is taking assumptions and presenting them as facts.

Asking zelensky to do something for you in exchange for aid is not a crime, biden did the same thing. There is no testimony or evidence, that I am aware of, that states to trump did any of this with the Express purpose of influencing the election.

Sure, we all can assume that all day long. Hopefully, assumptions dont impeach a president, but facts and evidence.

 

[Zorro!]

I keep hearing this.................."The articles of impeachment say absolutely nothing about Abuse of power to cheat in the elections. Perpetuating himself in power by illegal means."............................or something similar to that claim.

That's just unequivocally wrong.

Here is a quote from Article I.................................

"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage."
................................................................................................................................
Now that that is out of the way let's dig a little deeper. Is the act of soliciting Ukraine's help in damaging Biden's candidacy in the 2020 election, and thus helping Don's, a crime?

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“
‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help

Does that clear it up? Some still say no. Why? Basically, for the same reason Donnie J was not charged with a crime when he solicited dirt on Hillary from the Russians. A matter addressed at some length in the Mueller report. Team Mueller's conclusion was that because Donnie J was ignorant of the law...........and because of the difficulty in assigning a monetary value to the information he sought...........charging him with a crime that was able to be prosecuted would be difficult.

Similarly, the Orange Fraud's attorney, Billy the Bagman, made the determination no law was broken (after the top CIA counsel contacted the DoJ by issuing a criminal complaint regarding the Zelenshy call) because a monetary value could not be assigned to Don's request to Zelensky of trying to find dirt on Old Joe, or to announce an investigation to do so. (Clearly this law needs to be clarified)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...l-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

However, as we know, the technical commission of a crime is not necessary to pursue the impeachment of a prez if his/her actions represent an abuse of power.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

Perhaps this is a stretch, but I think even Trumpette's will acknowledge, legal or not, it is an abuse of office, at the least, for a prez to use his power to extort a foreign leader in to helping him with the prez's re-election. It was the act that caused the WB to submit his complaint and thus change Pelosi's mind about whether to proceed with impeachment.

Trump's actions are not a statutory crime, it is simply not true that the president never has the authority to countermand a congressional statute prescribing foreign aid; Article II of the Constitution gives the president nigh plenary power over the conduct of foreign relations.

Further, the aid was conferred with just a brief delay, with no harm done.

Now Democrats are claiming they concluded their investigation before they were done, which means the impeachment trial should be postponed until the House impeachment investigation is finished.

A trial cannot be fairly conducted if a defendant is still under active investigation for the same transactions, particularly when prosecutors are publicizing new evidence and new findings. That patently prejudices the trial court’s consideration of the formal charges that have been transmitted to the court.

In just the last 48 hours, congressional Democrats have raised the specter that the president and his underlings conducted surveillance of a U.S. ambassador they believed to be an obstacle to their campaign to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens; and did not merely undermine U.S. policy but actually violated U.S. law by delaying congressional aid.

Simultaneously, House Democrats are coordinating with Senate Democrats to orchestrate calls to expand the Senate’s imminent impeachment trial to explore any new allegations and witnesses that arise out of continuing investigations of the president, even though these allegations are not covered by the two articles of impeachment voted last month.

The transparent objective is to convert the Senate impeachment trial into a continuing grand jury investigation of Trump. This is an abuse of the impeachment power which would corrupt the solemn purpose of a Senate impeachment trial — namely, to give fair consideration and render judgment on the actual articles of impeachment, which the House finally delivered on Wednesday with much pomp and circumstance.

Legitimate trial courts do not allow themselves to be abused this way. The Senate should not put up with it.

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial ushers in era of hyper-partisanship the Framers feared

 

[Zorro!]

I keep hearing this.................."The articles of impeachment say absolutely nothing about Abuse of power to cheat in the elections. Perpetuating himself in power by illegal means."............................or something similar to that claim.

That's just unequivocally wrong.

Here is a quote from Article I.................................

"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage."
................................................................................................................................
Now that that is out of the way let's dig a little deeper. Is the act of soliciting Ukraine's help in damaging Biden's candidacy in the 2020 election, and thus helping Don's, a crime?

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“
‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help

Does that clear it up? Some still say no. Why? Basically, for the same reason Donnie J was not charged with a crime when he solicited dirt on Hillary from the Russians. A matter addressed at some length in the Mueller report. Team Mueller's conclusion was that because Donnie J was ignorant of the law...........and because of the difficulty in assigning a monetary value to the information he sought...........charging him with a crime that was able to be prosecuted would be difficult.

Similarly, the Orange Fraud's attorney, Billy the Bagman, made the determination no law was broken (after the top CIA counsel contacted the DoJ by issuing a criminal complaint regarding the Zelenshy call) because a monetary value could not be assigned to Don's request to Zelensky of trying to find dirt on Old Joe, or to announce an investigation to do so. (Clearly this law needs to be clarified)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...l-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

However, as we know, the technical commission of a crime is not necessary to pursue the impeachment of a prez if his/her actions represent an abuse of power.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

Perhaps this is a stretch, but I think even Trumpette's will acknowledge, legal or not, it is an abuse of office, at the least, for a prez to use his power to extort a foreign leader in to helping him with the prez's re-election. It was the act that caused the WB to submit his complaint and thus change Pelosi's mind about whether to proceed with impeachment.

Total nonsense. The House is abusing it's impeachment power and will be humiliated by Trump's complete exoneration and re-election.


Schiff Led House Managers Have Senators in “Agony” and “Bored Out of Their Minds” at Impeachment Trial

The boredom was exacerbated by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) forcing debates and votes on eleven doomed motions that dragged out Tuesday’s opening session until almost 2 a.m. EST.

The boredom set in on the first day, Tuesday, and carried on in to Wednesday as Lead House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) droned on for hours.

CBS News reported Tuesday evening mid-way through the opening session that senators were already bored to death.

Senator Bernie Sanders could be seen nodding off, slouched deep in his wooden desk with his chin
The AP reported Wednesday night on the boring trial:

“Many senators _ of both parties _ have walked out at different times during the proceedings…and taken their time returning to the chamber”
bobbing on his chest.

…Clocking in at more than two and a half hours, Schiff’s opening argument left dozens of empty chairs on the Senate floor as ... sleepy Democrats – left the room to converse in the halls or grab a snack.

When the California Democrat said, “Now let me turn to the second article of impeachment,” McConnell crumpled in his chair.

Absent from the room for more than 30 minutes, Sanders and Senator Amy Klobuchar — both pulled from the 2020 campaign trail to judge the impeachment case — cruised back in together to take their seats as Schiff concluded.

Almost immediately after Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled in Wednesday’s session of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, bored and weary senators started openly flouting some basic guidelines in a chamber that prizes decorum.

A Democrat in the back row leaned on his right arm, covered his eyes and stayed that way for nearly a half-hour. Some openly snickered when lead prosecutor Adam Schiff said he’d only speak for 10 minutes. And when one of the freshman House prosecutors stood to speak, many of the senator-jurors bolted for the cloak rooms, where their phones are stored.

“I do see the members moving and taking a break,” observed freshman Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, one of the House prosecutors, in mid-speech at the center podium. “I probably have another 15 minutes.”

The agony of the senator-jurors had begun to show the night before, with widespread but more subtle struggles to pay attention to opening arguments. Gum-chewing, snacking, yawning and alleged napping could be seen throughout the cramped chamber.

…Factoids aside, the novelty of the impeachment trial had clearly worn off Wednesday. Senators had heard the Trump-Ukraine story before, many times. Their boredom, one Republican senator suggested, had become a challenge to the prolific House managers’ strategy. Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said the less wordy president’s legal team had “read the Senate” better.

“It was a long day and the House managers did a lot of repeating the same material,” Rounds told reporters. “I’ve got 20 pages of notes, and towards the end, we were basically hearing the same thing over again. It was a diatribe.”

Trump-hater Chris Hayes of MSNBC is livid that senators are bored with the Democrats’ show trial, “The sheer entitled whininess on display here. We ask every citizen to serve on juries! And this is literally your job, to just show up and listen. I’m so sorry this is so hard for you. Go get another gig.”

News of the Democrats’ boring trial traveled around the world. Australia’s Sky News reports: “Sky News Contributor Cameron Stewart says “even the senators are bored” of the impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump.”

 

[Norman]

Dems can be proud for getting their asses kicked again.

This is what happens when all you got is an echo chamber and think ideology is enough to carry you to a victory.