Offical Impeachment Thread

[Winco]

“Do you have any knowledge of President Trump receiving a bribe?”

“No”

“Do you have any knowledge of the President committing any crime?”

“No”

Yup, two blows.

Not her job.
Why would she have 1st hand knowledge of trump receiving a bribe.
This is NO news.
Not a Win for the Donald as hard as his supporters try to claim.

Nothing Burger.

So then, tell us, why is it she was even called as a witness? Seeing as this is an impeachment inquiry and all.

Well, that's easy.
She was in her job to support positive relationships between the USA and Ukraine.
She knew the corruption that existed. Who was good and who was bad.
Then came Rudy.
She was trying to stop the corruption in the Ukraine, Rudy was there working with the corrupt components.
Then the conspiracy theories started by somehow falsely claiming that Biden was bribing, when in reality he was trying to oust the corrupt leader, but the spin machine of the trump camp spun hard. But ultimately not successfully.
Everyone knows that trump sent Rudy to smear/oust MY because she was in the way of their crime activity, called a "drug deal' by one of your own side.

You understand yet?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The average of the major polls clearly show the President's job approval ratings have been steadily climbing despite the hearings.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval

Again, according to one poll only -- Rasmussen, not surprisingly.

No, according to the RCP average of all the major polls.

You're lying again. Again, there have been only two polls since the hearings began on Wednesday. One is the same as their last poll and only Rasmussen, which leans Republican, is up.

Perhaps on your planet, but here on Earth, Pelosi announced the beginning of the impeachment inquiry on September 24.

Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump

Holyfuckingshit.

I already told you that back in post #3314 where I showed you Trump's approval rating is lower today than it was then, refuting your idiocy that his approval has been rising steadily since then.

The only thing your posts show is that while you like to quarrel you have no real interest in any of the issues. The RCP average of major polls show that the President's job approval ratings have been steadily rising since Oct. 24 despite the impeachment theater the Dems have been putting on. Clearly, voters are not paying attention to the show.

 

[depotoo]

“Do you have any knowledge of President Trump receiving a bribe?”

“No”

“Do you have any knowledge of the President committing any crime?”

“No”

Yup, two blows.

Not her job.
Why would she have 1st hand knowledge of trump receiving a bribe.
This is NO news.
Not a Win for the Donald as hard as his supporters try to claim.

Nothing Burger.

So then, tell us, why is it she was even called as a witness? Seeing as this is an impeachment inquiry and all.

Well, that's easy.
She was in her job to support positive relationships between the USA and Ukraine.
She knew the corruption that existed. Who was good and who was bad.
Then came Rudy.
She was trying to stop the corruption in the Ukraine, Rudy was there working with the corrupt components.
Then the conspiracy theories started by somehow falsely claiming that Biden was bribing, when in reality he was trying to oust the corrupt leader, but the spin machine of the trump camp spun hard. But ultimately not successfully.
Everyone knows that trump sent Rudy to smear/oust MY because she was in the way of their crime activity, called a "drug deal' by one of your own side.

You understand yet?

Actually, that explanation is for the birds.

 

[SweetSue92]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know what's incredible to me too: they perfectly expect when THEY win the White House again, WE will treat their president fairly.

oh honey, okay. Yep. You go right on thinking that you have a bunch of George Bushes around you when you take the WH back and not a bunch of us. Yep. You go on thinking that. Sure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

4) Trump benefits from one of the leading opposing candidates under "investigation"

And that's not an impeachable offense either.

That's something of value in exchange for favor or fealty. It is exactly an impeachable offense.

I see. So what you're saying is that any VP can conduct themselves in an illegal way, and nobody can even look into it in the next administration if they are running for President? Where is that written by the way?

It wasn''t Bidens decisions to hold up, cancel or approve the funds. He just let the Ukranian Leader know see the hand writing on the wall. Had they not fired the corrupt prosecutor, then there was a good chance that Congress and the President would have canceled the funds. You can say anything you wish but that was Statesman at it's finest.

Meanwhile, Rump was playing lose without Congressional assistance with congressional approved funds trying to get a political public favor from the new Ukranian Leader. Rump didn't have the power to do so but he tried. And he finally backed off AFTER the incident was reported in public. Then he tried to cover it up. Then he tried to and still tries to, intimidate witnesses and obstruct.

The Justice Department just finished busting Stone for similar crimes. The only difference is, Stone isn't the President. The President is supposed to be above such actions and this should not have EVER become an issue. But we have a Criminal for a President. And if Stone thinks that Rump will pardon him, Stone has another thing coming. Rump has already thrown Stone to the dumpster.

If Stone has been found guilty then Rump needs to be found guilty for the same crimes.

Repeating typical MSM garbage.

Trump never intimidated anybody. Who are you talking about with intimidation?

If Biden wasn't in charge of holding up funds, why did he say he was? When officials in Ukraine asked about it, he told them to call DumBama and see what happens.

Just because Congress approves funds doesn't mean the President has to release them unconditionally. And how did Trump try to cover it up when it was only days he released the transcript?

For one, I don't watch MSN. I am too much of a tighwad. Same goes for all the other so called "Political Motivated" News outlets (including Foxnews) that you keep harping about. I go by what I see on the local news which actually reports the news. In fact, if anything, the news around here is center right. Sor your claim that I am repeating MSN is a lie. But what else is new.

So Rump never intimidates. His routine on the Ambassador shows different. His treatment of anyone that doesn't exactly toe the line shows different. He uses his office for his own personal uses. Much like trying to get the name of the Whistle Blower. With Rumps history, that's akin to a death sentence. Or he uses his intimidation to force elected officials to overlook his serious escapades that only a despot would do. He tries to operate the office of the President of the United States like the head of a Mob Boss.

Biden wasn't in charge of the funds. Congress was in charge of those funds and could rescind them anytime. The President could ask Congress to reject the funds or release those funds in a timely manner as per the agreement from the Congress. Biden did a great statesman's way of telling them that if they didn't get rid of the corrupt prosecutor that they were going to lose those funds. He gave than a 6 hour ultimatum with the backing of Congress and the President. Biden was the messenger. Since it force Ukraine to go against Putin, I can understand why you would find fault in this, Comrade.

Rump released the funds AFTER the whistle blower approached the NSA IG who in turn turned it over to the congress. Rump was bagged. Yes, it was days before the transcript was released to congress but it was AFTER he instructed that the transcript and conversation was buried in a secret server that was never meant to house that information. In affect, Rump was trying to bury it. Rump tried to use his position to force another head of state to contribute to his reelection campaign by what is in affect, bribery or blackmail. If I am in the process of doing an armed robbery of a bank and the bank gets surround by the cops can I just give the money back and say, "I never really did Rob the Bank, therefore, there is no crime". You and Rump may very well have rewritten criminal law for everyone else. No, you don't want it for everyone else, just Rump. And even a President is not above the law.

 

[Lesh]

The Washington Post. Enough said.

They point out two things.

Trump has shown exactly NO interest in "rooting out corruption" in any situation that didn't involve a political rival.

Trump people put out a "readout" of a phone call that was bogus...putting in doubt the veracity of ANY "transcript" they put out

 

[IM2]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dumb.

 

[IM2]

Repeating it doesn't improve it. What I said was: "That's something of value in exchange for favor or fealty. It is exactly an impeachable offense."

What you've spilled on the page is some nonsense you wish I had said.

What you said is like the call transcript. It's available for all to see.

Trump holds up money to Ukraine for whatever purposes he held it up for. But because it may have also benefited him in the event he ran against Biden, that makes it an impeachable offense. Did you not say that?

And if so, that means that Trump couldn't have held up the money for any reason, even if he knew it would end up in corrupt hands, because Biden is in the race. Did you not say that???

So you're saying it is just a coincidence that Trump withheld the military aid just days before the phone call. And it's just coincidental that Trump dropped a request that Zelensky open a corruption investigation when discussing military aid in the phone conversation. And of course, it's just a coincidence that Biden's son worked for the company to be investigated. And it was coincidental that Trump fired the Ambassador to the Ukraine, who was not on the Trump team, just weeks before the phone call. And of course Zelensky's much sought after meeting with the president was being delayed.

WOW! What a strange series of coincidences.

Riddle me this: If Zelensky took Trump's request as a threat, how is it he had no idea US aid was being held up? I mean, if an inspector comes to my house to complain my house paint is chipping, and I offer him 100 to ignore it, we both know I bribed him. I gave him a hundred bucks, and he got in his car and left.

What the left is trying to claim here, is that Trump bribed Zelensky, and Zelensky had no idea he'd just been bribed. Yes, Trump wanted to know the association between Hunter and Ukraine. After all, the drug addict got a job in a field he didn't know anything about, in a country he didn't know anything about; not even the language, all while his father was not only the VP, but in charge of goings on in the country.

Because Zelensky knew. Now stop telling that lie.

You're the on lying, Zelensky didn't find out about it till Aug 29. More than a month after the call.

.

That's incorrect.

Ukraine president knew Trump wanted Biden probe back in May

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was worried about how to deal with pressure from the Trump administration to investigate Joe Biden in early May — about two weeks before he was inaugurated, a new report said Wednesday.

Zelensky had gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kiev for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs.

Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate President Trump’s and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s calls for a probe into Biden, The Associated Press reported, citing a trio of sources familiar with the details of the meeting.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/23/ukraine-president-knew-trump-wanted-biden-probe-back-in-may-report/

AP: Ukraine's president knew as early as May that Trump was interested in the Biden probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/when-did-ukraine-know-that-trump-had-frozen-aid/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/when-did-ukraine-know-that-trump-had-frozen-aid/

 

[NotYourBody]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That ignores Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush the Lesser. None of them were impeached.

Getting an intern blow job is also an impeachable offense, don't forget that. I don't imagine that will be an issue for Trump because he has to pay for sex and interns don't get paid enough for that horror.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

BTW, she didn’t have any idea of any crime committed by the president.

Other do. His fat orange ass will be impeached

Why weren’t they there then instead?

Have you seen todays news?

Let me guess, it is something negative about Trump.

Yup!

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost

Testimony Ties Trump Closer To Pressure On Ukraine | HuffPost

 

[playtime]

Why did Turmp have to do a smear job on Yovanovitch to get her out of the way?

Who says he did? That was simply Yovanovitch ans Schiff's interpretation of what happened.

Oh sorry, I thought you watched the testimony yesterday.

I did. I watched Schiff and Yovanovitch claim that Trump smeared her.

actually she said that rotten rudy smeared her & trump agreeing that she was 'bad news' is enough. btw, there NEVER was a reason given for her dismissal, even if idonny just didn't like her. no reason at all.

She wasn't dismissed, she was reassigned. And the president doesn't need a reason.

.

uh - ya. i know & have said that in other posts. the question is ---- by the abassador herself - was that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the prez - but why was she 'smeared'?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Who says he did? That was simply Yovanovitch ans Schiff's interpretation of what happened.

Oh sorry, I thought you watched the testimony yesterday.

I did. I watched Schiff and Yovanovitch claim that Trump smeared her.

actually she said that rotten rudy smeared her & trump agreeing that she was 'bad news' is enough. btw, there NEVER was a reason given for her dismissal, even if idonny just didn't like her. no reason at all.

She wasn't dismissed, she was reassigned. And the president doesn't need a reason.

.

uh - ya. i know & have said that in other posts. the question is ---- by the abassador herself was that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the prez - but why was she 'smeared'?

Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.

 

[playtime]

you & your fellow basket dwellers are the ones to be laughed at.

A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.
Robert Mackey
May 10 2019, 9:52 p.m.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front-page stories in the New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.
A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.

lol... next?

Check where their funding comes from, does the Open Societies Foundation ring any bells?

.

i gave you a google key search which contained many articles all reporting the same thing. uh- soros doesn't own them all or are you that whacked to believe he does?

Ukraine envoy had ‘clear understanding’ on quid pro quo, but no firsthand knowledge of Trump plans: transcript
By Alex Pappas, Brooke Singman | Fox News

While Sondland had texted Taylor in September saying there was no quid pro quo, the supplemental declaration says that “by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

He also acknowledged telling one of Zelensky’s advisers that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

Ukraine envoy had ‘clear understanding’ on quid pro quo, but no firsthand knowledge of Trump plans: transcript

so............ what you are trying to peddle is that george soros owns FOX NEWS too?
somebody better let rupert in on that bit of info.

next?

Exactly what was this proposed anti-corruption statement supposed to contain? You commies keep bringing it up, but I see no smoking gun there.

.

tell ya what - why don't get yerself a box of meow mix, cuddle up to the tv on wednesday, & watch the show, pussy cat.

So you're touting grand new evidence and you have no clue what it is. Typical commie, clueless.


.

i am not. but ambassador taylor did & so did the dude that heard the phone call in the kiev restaurant & apparently there's another dude who heard it as well.

sondland will hafta 'splain it all AND 'splain why he didn't mention any of that in the testimony he originally gave - then revised cause he 'suddenly remembered stuff' & now this time.

on wednesday.


d'oh!

 

[IM2]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know what's incredible to me too: they perfectly expect when THEY win the White House again, WE will treat their president fairly.

oh honey, okay. Yep. You go right on thinking that you have a bunch of George Bushes around you when you take the WH back and not a bunch of us. Yep. You go on thinking that. Sure.

Your association with reality is non existent. You guys trashed Obama for 8 years and are still going. But Trump has broken laws and violated his oath of office. So if you have any morals you stop lying about why trump is in this position.

 

[playtime]

i already said that doesn't matter at this point - but i hope you aren't betting on a rock solid united front from all the (R)s, are you?

At this point, yep, with some defections from the Ds. Right now I don't even see this crap making it to the senate. Like I said before, this is nothing but a commie campaign trick, pulling anything they can to try to effect public opinion.

.

.

it will go to trial. being removed is a whole other animal - but he'll get a trial.

Don't bet the farm on it child. LMAO

.

McConnell Shuts Down Early Dismissal Option for Impeachment Articles, Says Senate Will ‘Have to Have a Trial’
By Mairead McArdle
November 13, 2019 4:10 PM
Trump Impeachment -- Mitch McConnell Shuts Down Early Dismissal Option for Impeachment Articles | National Review

is devon nunes' cow on that there farm?

At this point I don't see the house even voting on articles. They don't want to commit political suicide.

.

then you need to take them blinders off pussy cat.

 

[playtime]

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

that link says what?

are you illiterate?

It must be you

nope. it's you, dude. it's all y-o-u.

 

[IM2]

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

Top officials were told in early August about the delay of $391 million in security assistance, undercutting a chief argument President Trump has used to deny any quid pro quo.

To Democrats who say that President Trump’s decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended to bully Ukraine’s leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump’s political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been blocked. the freeze was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand. That did not deter the president, who on Wednesday approvingly tweeted a quote by a congressional Republican saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”

In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

weeks earlier than acknowledged.

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

Ukraine Knew Trump Was Freezing Aid Over Biden

Ukrainian officials knew for months that President Donald Trump was withholding key military aid to their country over demands that Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rival and 2020 candidate Joe Biden, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The report, based on interviews and documents the Times obtained, directly contradicts Trump’s claim that there could not have been an improper quid pro quo arrangement because Ukrainian officials did not know the United States was withholding $391 million in military aid.

Instead, top Ukrainian officials reportedly knew of the aid freeze as early as the first week of August ― just days after Trump requested Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden during a July 25 phone call.

Ukraine Knew Trump Was Freezing Aid Over Biden, New York Times Reports | HuffPost

 

[RealDave]

Apparently winning the election as a Republican President is an impeachable offense. Good luck losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why wasn't Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower not impeached but Nixon would have been if he had not resigned?
Ummmmm. I wonder why?

Is it because Nixon was a crook? Just like your orange buddy?

 

[RealDave]

LOLOL

Moron, I said nothing of the sort. How the fuck do you keep getting this wrong?? I never said a candidate for president can't be investigated. You only think that's what I said because you're a flaming imbecile. What I said was.... a president running for re-election is not allowed to solicit a foreign national to help find dirt on another candidate running for that same office.

Maybe you like having a lawless dictator run a banana republic where they can use he power of their political office to eliminate their competition, but most don't.

Poor little short buy, I highlighted exactly what you said, being eligible to run for office is not an exemption from investigation. You commies are proving that on a daily basis. You're doing exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing. Don't think your short bus status excuses your hypocrisy.

.

You're fucking demented, dumbfuck cuck -- I never said Biden couldn't be investigated. I never said he shouldn't be investigated. You only think I said that because you're totally fucked in the head (i.e., typical conservative). I said Trump can't ask a foreign national to investigate Biden.

Wrong again short bus, he can ask for cooperation on anyone, remember, "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW". Isn't that what you commies have been chanting for the last 3 years?

.

No, he cannot ask a foreign country to investigate his political opponents.

Are you saying running for office makes one immune form investigation? If not, we have a treaty with Ukraine on criminal investigations, I haven't seen where politicians are exempted form that treaty.

.

Investigate them all. But only picking one & wanting an announcement more than the actual investigation should be a hint.

 

[RealDave]

1) Yes, he can suspend funds for that reason, and Trump laid out several. It's the Democrats who claim to be able to read minds, and mind reading should not be grounds for impeachment.

2) Again, no evidence that Trump suspended anything for political reasons. Ukraine officials had no idea the funds were suspended until a month after the phone call. Obviously, they didn't drastically need them at the time. What Trump provided to them in the past was sufficient.

3)Yes, Biden was investigated by his bosses team. What did you really expect, a conviction?

4) The election is a little less than a year away. Trump nor anybody knows who the nominee will be. What is evident is that Biden has been losing ground since spring.

1) withholding funds for policial purpose is abuse of power. Or, asking another country to announce fake investigation of polical opponent also is abuse of power. Together its bribery.

2) "If you don't announce that it's a bank robbery, it's not a bank robbery!"

3) can you read? it says Ukraine investigated the Bidens

4) Trump benefits from one of the leading opposing candidates under "investigation"

Then you are admitting that Obama and Kerry abused power by withholding funds from Iran for many years? That cost lives! They withheld aid from the Kurds for years! Abuse of power! That cost lives! How many more do you want? Where is the prosecution???!!!

Withholding funds because of good for America is not the same as withholding fund for political reasons. Even a stupid fuck like you knows this.

Then please point out where or when Trump said he's holding up the money for political reasons. It's all we are asking.

Unreal Dave gets all his insider information directly from the Cosmos through his Ouija Board!

OK, put his fat ass on the witness stand.

There is no recording. All we have is a White House generated synopsis.