Offical Impeachment Thread

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they were, then Trump had nothing to do with it. A 2 year 45 million tax dollar investigation proved that. So tell me, why did DumBama allow that to go on??

It did prove that. And Obama didn't have 140+ meetings with the Russians during his campaign.

Even if he did, there is no law against it. Furthermore the Mueller investigation revealed (and I'm using Mueller's own words) No American had anything to do with colluding with Russia.

You are not using Mueller's words because Mueller's words say they weren't looking for collusion.

That's not what he said in cross examination when the Democrats hauled him in for questioning. Wanna see it? I'll dig up the video.

I saw his testimony. I read the report. He stated that collusion is not a crime listed in the US Code. What he did say was he found no evidence of a FORMAL conspiracy, meaning he could not find a FORMAL agreement between the parties. But those 140 meetings just didn't happen by coincidence meaning there was a tacit agreement. And since Trump obstructed by stopping witnesses and he most certainly did not try to get the Russian government to extradite the indicted government officials, a tacit agreement could not be proven.

Then perhaps you should watch this short video.

 

[bripat9643]

What I love is how you Democrats are chasing voters to our side. That's what I love about it. If your heads weren't so clouded to see what others see, you'd understand the damage Democrats are doing to themselves.

Trump Campaign Raises $3.1M in Donations During Impeachment Hearings

The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.

As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.

Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.

If you cared about justice you wouldn't be on here telling everyone how the rich should be looted.

Why not? The rich are the ones robbing everybody else.

Really? Then why don't you have them arrested?

Let me know how you feel when your tax cut runs out while the rich keep getting them in 1 year and 1.5 months.

You didn't answer the question: why don't you have them arrested?

 

[OKTexas]

How do you know he didn't, the DOJ doesn't discuss investigations, perhaps Durham is looking into it along with other things that happened. If it was ongoing, there would be no need to discuss it, would there?

.

Justice Department: Trump never asked Barr to talk to Ukraine

Funny, I heard him do it on TV several times. But once again, how do you know they aren't already looking into it?

.

From the article ...

DOJ says no such call between Barr and the Ukrainians ended up taking place.​

And of course things never change, RIGHT?

.

Great, prove it changed. Meanwhile, Trump was talking about Biden ousting Shokin since May, maybe earlier. Called Zelensky in July and asked Zelensky for help regarding Biden. The article I posted was from the end of September and Barr was still not looking into Ukraine. So when did he start? After the impeachment inquiry started?

But more to the point, you point out how Trump told Zelensky he would have Barr call him -- so why do you think Trump didn't do that?

I don't know he hasn't, he's said several times publicly that he wants him to.

.

 

[The Purge]

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

Sharyl Attkisson ^ | 11/14/2019 | Sharyl Attkisson

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There’s a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here’s a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma’s board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about “Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member” amid the corruption questions because it “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President’s office. Kent stated he has “no idea” what the Vice President’s office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden’s action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.”

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he’d been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated “no.”

When asked, Kent agreed it’s appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

------------

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor.

... When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

And the New York Times doesn't see a story here? Thank God for Sharyl Attkisson... ...

 

[OKTexas]

Exact words please, and no commie interpretations either.

There are no commie interpretations and you know the exact words.

If I did, I must be the only one between us because you obviously can't answer my question.

There is a difference between can't answer and not going to answer. You know what was said on that call and you know exactly where the bribery occurred in that call.

That's why I'm asking. I read the transcript about a dozen times or so, and I can't find where Trump stated Ukraine could have US aid if they conduct an investigation on Biden. So I must have missed something, so perhaps you can help. Give me the exact words that I missed, page and paragraph if possible.

Dumbfuck, while not releasing the aid since February ...

Zelensky: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though...​

They were ALMOST ready to make the purchase, they have since done so. So what's your point?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violate the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid.

Of course all he really wants is President Zelensky to announce he is opening and investigation into Biden. Then he could spin all kinds of stories about Biden at his rallies. Of course he will probably do that anyway.

1) Trump never bribed anybody.
2) Never was any investigation.
3) Ukraine got the US aid.

That's because he got his fingers caught in the cookie jar. If the whistle blower didn't spill the beans, Trump would have have probably got away with it.

The AH is not a whistle blower as explained in the ICIG guide for whistle blowers. The guide says the ICIG receives complaints in areas under the DIRECT RESPONSIBILTY OF THE DNI. A diplomatic phone call between two presidents DO NOT fall under the DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DNI. So get your facts straight there commie, you're looking a bit foolish.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violate the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid.

Of course all he really wants is President Zelensky to announce he is opening and investigation into Biden. Then he could spin all kinds of stories about Biden at his rallies. Of course he will probably do that anyway.

1) Trump never bribed anybody.
2) Never was any investigation.
3) Ukraine got the US aid.

For fuck's sake, Trump only released the money after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he hadn't released it because he was using it as quid pro quo to get Ukraine's president to look into some matters that benefit Trump personally. Meanwhile, until then, Trump held up that aid for some 7 months.

See post 2588.

.

 

[OKTexas]

If I did, I must be the only one between us because you obviously can't answer my question.

There is a difference between can't answer and not going to answer. You know what was said on that call and you know exactly where the bribery occurred in that call.

That's why I'm asking. I read the transcript about a dozen times or so, and I can't find where Trump stated Ukraine could have US aid if they conduct an investigation on Biden. So I must have missed something, so perhaps you can help. Give me the exact words that I missed, page and paragraph if possible.

Dumbfuck, while not releasing the aid since February ...

Zelensky: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though...​

While you call someone a dumbfuck, why do you idiots only give a snippet of what you want people to focus on?
Why the fuck don't you post the entire paragraph of what Trump stated. sheesh

Because that's the salient part. Zelensky is ready to buy military aid from us (with our money) and the first words out of Trump's mouth is to ask for a favor.

And not for nothing, but .... I could have posted more ... I could have posted how Trump asked Zelensky to look into the DNC server from the 2016 election, which only serves to help him politically -- or I could have posted how Trump also asked Zelensky to look into a political rival of his, which also only serves to help him politically. But I chose to just focus on him asking for favors immediately after Zelensky was looking for help from us to fend off Russia.

You left a word out of what Zelensky said. Do you know what it is? Can you say he was ALMOST ready, and he did. If my memory serves, he bought 75 Javelin ATMs and 3 launchers.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

Sharyl Attkisson ^ | 11/14/2019 | Sharyl Attkisson

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There’s a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here’s a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma’s board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about “Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member” amid the corruption questions because it “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President’s office. Kent stated he has “no idea” what the Vice President’s office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden’s action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.”

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he’d been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated “no.”

When asked, Kent agreed it’s appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

------------

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor.

... When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

And the New York Times doesn't see a story here? Thank God for Sharyl Attkisson... ...

And despite Kent's concerns, almost 2 billion dollars of US aid was deposited in Zlochevsky’s (owner of Burisma) bank and all that money somehow vanished. And I have yet to hear that has ever been investigated. I guess we know know were the money to pay baby Biden millions came from.

.

 

[IM2]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violated the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid. There is nothing wrong with Trump asking a foreign country to look into the actives of any American if he does it the right way which means he uses offical channels and goes through his AG. However, he wanted the Ukraine to announce and investigation of Biden without any apparent pressure from the US. This would make the case they are creating against Biden must more believable.

That's because he has no evidence and just wanted to throw that accusation out there to use as a talking point to repeat over and over during his campaign because he knows that he might be able to fool enough people who aren't die hards in the rust belt into voting for him again.

 

[forkup]

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

Sharyl Attkisson ^ | 11/14/2019 | Sharyl Attkisson

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There’s a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here’s a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma’s board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about “Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member” amid the corruption questions because it “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President’s office. Kent stated he has “no idea” what the Vice President’s office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden’s action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.”

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he’d been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated “no.”

When asked, Kent agreed it’s appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

------------

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor.

... When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

And the New York Times doesn't see a story here? Thank God for Sharyl Attkisson... ...

Guess what? The guy who closed the corruption case was the chief prosecutor. Kind of hard to make the case that demanding him to be fired is an attempt to help Burisma don't you think?

 

[OldLady]

Another wasted day the swamp democrat leaders carry on this impeachment charade. All taken advantage of by the hard working tax payer expense.

The important thing is, yesterday was the BIG DAY, the STAR WITNESSES, the day that they were SUPPOSED to GET TRUMP, but it fizzled like a melting lollipop.
So today, not only is no one covering this FARCE, no one wants to WATCH IT.
It's OVER. The dems blew their wad and it's OVER.
Now comes the IG report, and the demtrash have a RUDE AWAKENING coming.

Thank you! I was about to ask-- -- -- I turned the TV on at 10AM.

• CBS nothing.
• ABC nothing.
• NBC nothing.
• PBS nothing.
• FOX nothing.

So I tried again at 11AM. Still nothing but soap operas and Sesame Street. Guess the networks lost enough revenue for one day. Oh well, yesterday was a screaming yawner anyway. I suppose the remainder will be left for some obscure cable channel now where no one will watch it or care.

Trump was right again. Is it too late to ask for a refund? I figure the democrats are into every taxpaying in this country now for a few bucks. Democrats: consider that my campaign contribution for whatever fuckwit you eventually nominate.

Try at 6 p.m. That's when the NEWS comes on.

I see you're fine being TOLD what to think by propagandists. I prefer getting my info first hand.

Wake me when Trump has been told to vacate the Oval Office or when Barr and Nunes begin calling Schiff and the Bidens to the witness stand.

First hand? You want all the people testifying here to have been in the room with Trump while these conversations went on, when he stopped the payment of the military aid, when he said whatever he said that caused the Ambassador of the EU to say Trump cared more about his investigation than Ukraine. I'd love to know where YOUR first hand knowledge is coming from. You friends with a WH leaker?

 

[OldLady]

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

Where does it say the president can't simply make a personal request?

When the request is (1) asking a foreign country for assistance in his campaign (you'd think he would have learned....) and (2) he is withholding funds already approved by the Congress in order to force that country to assist.
I could simply make a personal request that you shoot someone for me, and you know what would happen? I'd end up in jail.

You're spouting Dim talking points that have been debunked 1000 times.

They haven't been debunked because the President says so, you know. He's the one being accused. I've never known a crook yet who fessed up and admitted what he did--at least not before the sentence came down.

 

[NotYourBody]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

Since the telephone was not invented when the constitution was written, there is no special phone call section. What matters here is the WORDS spoken, not the delivery method. Don't be obtuse, if you can help it.

 

[RealDave]

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Nothing between Hunter and China, then why did they send 600K+ to an account controlled by him and Devon Archer?

.

It was an investment company. Company owners have access to their company's bank account. It does not mean they take it for themselves. You assfucks are dumber than shit.

 

[RealDave]

Pelosi looks like a babbling idiot, because she is one. Today it's bribery. What will it be tomorrow? What a joke. What a waste.

It went from collusion to quid pro quo. From quid pro quo, to extortion. From extortion, it went to bribery.

It's called throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.

It is a fsct that the Ruissians interfered in the 2016 election and it was likely Trump colluded by providing them some direction as to where he needed help. This was basically proven whren his campaign forwarded their internal polling.

Later, Trump made a phone call exorting the President of the Ukraine.

One is not related to another.

 

[Ame®icano]

If I did, I must be the only one between us because you obviously can't answer my question.

There is a difference between can't answer and not going to answer. You know what was said on that call and you know exactly where the bribery occurred in that call.

That's why I'm asking. I read the transcript about a dozen times or so, and I can't find where Trump stated Ukraine could have US aid if they conduct an investigation on Biden. So I must have missed something, so perhaps you can help. Give me the exact words that I missed, page and paragraph if possible.

Dumbfuck, while not releasing the aid since February ...

Zelensky: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though...​

While you call someone a dumbfuck, why do you idiots only give a snippet of what you want people to focus on?
Why the fuck don't you post the entire paragraph of what Trump stated. sheesh

Because that's the salient part. Zelensky is ready to buy military aid from us (with our money) and the first words out of Trump's mouth is to ask for a favor.

And not for nothing, but .... I could have posted more ... I could have posted how Trump asked Zelensky to look into the DNC server from the 2016 election, which only serves to help him politically -- or I could have posted how Trump also asked Zelensky to look into a political rival of his, which also only serves to help him politically. But I chose to just focus on him asking for favors immediately after Zelensky was looking for help from us to fend off Russia.

Quote the whole text, what the favor is about, shitstain.

 

[The Original Tree]

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Clinton was impeached by the house and then acquitted by the senate.
View attachment 289838

That's actually wrong. The House Writes Articles of Impeachment, and that is all they can do. They vote on The Articles of Impeachment to decide whether they are to be approved by a majority and then sent to The Senate. They then send them to The Senate.

The Senate Impeaches.

The senate convicts.

Actually you are still a DUMMY. Why do you Foreigners try to bullshit Americans about their own system of Government?

The Senate first Votes if the Articles of Impeachment approved by The House have merit to be heard and The Senate votes to hold an Impeachment. The Senate then has the Impeachment Proceedings, and hear all evidence for and against, and then render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

The Senate does not have to allow an Impeachment if they feel that The Articles of Impeachment are not in line with The Parameters described in The Constitution and founding documents, and are frivolous and political in nature. This is why Bill Clinton was recommended for 13 indictments by The Special Counsel, and that is what The House voted on and wrote articles of impeachment on, and then took that to The Senate who then voted to begin an Impeachment. They chose not to convict and remove from office. The Senate does not have to remove a President from Office.

Out of the 13 Indictments Special Counsel Recommended for Clinton, The Senate only judged that two had merit. Mad Moscow Mueller had 0 Recommendations for Indictment against President Trump. Clinton was "Acquitted" because The Senate could not reach a 2/3rds majority vote to convict on the charges.

Here was the vote on Clinton.

"A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against."

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

 

[The Original Tree]

Pelosi looks like a babbling idiot, because she is one. Today it's bribery. What will it be tomorrow? What a joke. What a waste.

It went from collusion to quid pro quo. From quid pro quo, to extortion. From extortion, it went to bribery.

It's called throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.

It is a fsct that the Ruissians interfered in the 2016 election and it was likely Trump colluded by providing them some direction as to where he needed help. This was basically proven whren his campaign forwarded their internal polling.

Later, Trump made a phone call exorting the President of the Ukraine.

One is not related to another.

The Facts are Showing The Ukraine was interfering in our Elections on Behalf of Hillary Clinton.
The facts also show Hunter Biden getting bribes and a shit ton of money so Ukraine could lobby The White House. The facts also show, John Kerry's Son, Nancy Pelosi's Son, and Joe Biden's Son were all getting paid by Ukrainian Company Burisma, and by Corrupt Ukrainian Oligarchs that had to flee to Russia when an Anti Corruption Government was elected in to office.

 

[RealDave]

The Biden-Burisma part of the impeachment hearing

Sharyl Attkisson ^ | 11/14/2019 | Sharyl Attkisson

There are plenty of post mortems on day one of the impeachment hearings against President Trump.

There’s a summary in The Huffington Post, this left-sided take is from Rolling Stone, and here’s a view from the right-side in The Washington Examiner.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll highlight a few interesting sections from each of the two witnesses.

George Kent, Deputy Asst. Secretary of State testified that the Obama administration pressed Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian energy company Burisma long before President Trump sought an investigation.

Kent agrees today that Burisma should be “fully investigated,” as President Trump has asked.

Kent explained the history of Burisma corruption. He alleged that Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky, formerly part of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government (2010-2012), was guilty of self dealing and corruption. Zlochevsky then went on to found Burisma, the largest private gas company in that nation.

Kent stated that in December 2014, a bribe was paid within Ukraine to make an investigation into Zlochevsky’s crimes “go away.” Kent says the bribed official fled Ukraine as the U.S. pressed Ukrainian officials to answer why prosecutors closed the case.

Kent stated that about the time the bribe was paid to shut down the investigation of Burisma in 2014, the corrupt Zlochevsky invited a series of new, prominent individuals to serve on his board. They included the former president of Poland and the son of Vice President Biden, Hunter. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid upward of $50,000 a month to serve on Burisma’s board for the corrupt Zlochevsky.

Kent testified that he was so concerned about Burisma corruption, that in May of 2014, when he learned Burisma was trying to co-sponsor an essay contest with the U.S. Agency of International Development, Kent asked the U.S. to bow out, saying we should not co-sponsor anything with a company that has such a bad reputation.

Kent said that in 2015, he expressed concern about “Hunter Biden’s status as a [Burisma] board member” amid the corruption questions because it “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He said he did not raise the issue with the State Department, which did not seem concerned, but did raise it with the Vice President’s office. Kent stated he has “no idea” what the Vice President’s office did about his concerns.

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor. (Biden has said he got the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt.)

Kent defended Biden’s action and stated it was accordance with U.S. policy.

When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

Kent says up until today, the U.S. has not gotten a satisfactory answer to why the Burisma case was closed.

Kent testified that Burisma corruption still needs to be investigated because U.S. tax money was involved, and he says he would like to find out the name of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor who took the bribe. Kent says he expressed this desire in 2015.

Kent says the new president of Ukraine and new prosecutor have agreed to review the old crimes never brought to justice, but that often people are “never held to account” in notoriously corrupt Ukraine so there is “lots to review.”

Kent stated that Vice President Biden made six visits to Ukraine, though Biden stated he’d been there 13 times.

When asked if someone, such as Biden should be immune from investigation because he is currently running for political office, Kent stated “no.”

When asked, Kent agreed it’s appropriate to look at foreign assistance in terms of levels of corruption within the receiving country.

William Taylor, Acting Ambassador to Ukraine said he found a “weird combination of confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances” involving the newly-elected government in Ukraine. He said there appeared to be two U.S. diplomatic channels for communicating with and about Ukraine: “regular” (which he had control over) and “irregular.”

------------

In Spring of 2016, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president agreed to fire its chief prosecutor within six hours. The prosecutor was investigating corruption including Burisma, where Biden’s son still served on the board. Ukraine’s president agreed and fired the prosecutor.

... When asked, Kent agreed that it was unprecedented for a U.S. official to give a foreign president a six hour deadline to fire a prosecutor as a condition for receiving U.S. aid.

And the New York Times doesn't see a story here? Thank God for Sharyl Attkisson... ...

When Trump only talked about getting an announcement of an investigation into one person, your argument is over.