Serious questions for Trump supporters regarding this impeachment thing

[Wry Catcher]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you such a pathetic lemming, that you can't think for yourself? No wonder the left-wing wants to control the media... because apparently all left-wingers are mindless robots.

Really? Someone said it, and so you personally no longer need the mental capacity to think for yourself, and look at the evidence on your own, and determine if there was anything actually wrong? You just hear someone say "Trump Bad" and you mindlessly parrot it like a good little pawn of the establishment?

At least this explains how you guys can run around screaming about the evil rich, while endlessly support the elite rich in our society.

No, I don't give a crap about any of that, because you people lie too much. I read the transcript of the phone call myself. There was nothing in there that was illegal. Nothing.

Maybe you are not man enough to think for yourself, but I am. There was no quid pro quo. He did not say "Until you investigate Biden, I'm not giving you the cash". The entire phone call was about corruption generally, and the only one single sentence in the entire transcript had anything to do with Biden, and it only said that it looked terrible, that Biden openly boasted that he specifically told them to fire a prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company where Biden's son worked at, and that Biden would specifically withhold funds, unless they fired him. They fired him. He released the funds.

Biden directly engaged in quid pro quo. So you are accusing Trump of doing exactly what Biden directly and specifically did. Difference being that Volodymyr Zelensky said he would not open an investigation into Biden, and didn't. And Trump released the funds.

Biden got the prosecutor fired. And did not release the funds, and said he wouldn't, until after the prosecutor was fired. He was. Biden did.

This phone call proves only that Democrats, as per usual, have a double standard. Quid pro quo with Biden... perfectly fine. No quid pro quo, but accusation of quid pro quo with Trump... that's bad.

This entire thing, just makes left-wingers look like the terrible useless trash they are.

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

According to Rudy, he was summoned by the State Department.

And according to the State Department?

So far they never denied it. I don't see how Rudy could retain credibility if he made a claim that was totally denied by the State department. Rudy made that statement on Laura's show on Wednesday or Thursday, and the State department never said it was false.

 

[Coyote]

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

According to Rudy, he was summoned by the State Department.

And according to the State Department?

So far they never denied it. I don't see how Rudy could retain credibility if he made a claim that was totally denied by the State department. Rudy made that statement on Laura's show on Wednesday or Thursday, and the State department never said it was false.

Rudy lies a lot. But this sounds very messy. I hope they release the requested documents.

Pompeo defends State Department role in Giuliani's Ukraine efforts

 

[Zorro!]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

You guys aren't fooling anyone. You have been trying to overturn the election since his victory was declared, we WANT the nation to understand you folks better, and this will result in a huge tune-in and when they see you are trying to impeach the President because you do not accept the decision of the US Electorate, it's clear who you are really attacking, The American People.

Trump tricked Not So Swift Schiff, by releasing the transcripts, the IG report and the Whistle Blower complaints, so fast, and redaction free, that hapless Democrats were still demanding their release after thy had already been released and Democrat claims about them fully debunked.

At first, some Democrats claimed that the transcript was faked. It wasn’t. Two CIA employees detailed to the White House made the transcription. Others claimed the ellipses in the transcript revealed hidden redactions. Actually, they simply signified a pause by the speaker. Interestingly, sometime between May 2018 and August of this year, the form for filing a whistleblower report was changed substantially with little if any notice. As of May 24, 2018 the relevant Form (IC IG ICWPA FORM 401) required the report involve “urgent concerns,” be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” You think that sells as coincidence?

This complaint merely repeats second-hand knowledge. It is utterly false about the nature of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, and reflects, instead of wrongdoing by the President, that there are some in the bowels of the government who have policy differences with him and wish to wound him. That will become more and more undeniable.

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official”

It's not First hand information, it's hearsay garbage.

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant lies, claiming that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/adam_schiffs_impeachment_fun_playhouse.html

Trump did not release anything fast. And he kept changing his story.

Boy are you guys snowed or what?

Trump released everything, so fast and unredacted that the Not So Swift on the Left were still demanding their release, when they had already been released and all the Left's false claims thoroughly debunked. Schiff was reduced to lying about a transcript that everyone was holding. Hard to get more desperate than that!

But charge on ahead with impeachment even though you don't have squat for High Crimes. You fully deserve what comes next with the Country realizes that you are contesting an election simply because you are a bunch of whiny self-entitled brats. You are going to grow from the consequences that will follow.

So much to look forward to!

 

[Coyote]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

You guys aren't fooling anyone. You have been trying to overturn the election since his victory was declared, we WANT the nation to understand you folks better, and this will result in a huge tune-in and when they see you are trying to impeach the President because you do not accept the decision of the US Electorate, it's clear who you are really attacking, The American People.

Trump tricked Not So Swift Schiff, by releasing the transcripts, the IG report and the Whistle Blower complaints, so fast, and redaction free, that hapless Democrats were still demanding their release after thy had already been released and Democrat claims about them fully debunked.

At first, some Democrats claimed that the transcript was faked. It wasn’t. Two CIA employees detailed to the White House made the transcription. Others claimed the ellipses in the transcript revealed hidden redactions. Actually, they simply signified a pause by the speaker. Interestingly, sometime between May 2018 and August of this year, the form for filing a whistleblower report was changed substantially with little if any notice. As of May 24, 2018 the relevant Form (IC IG ICWPA FORM 401) required the report involve “urgent concerns,” be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” You think that sells as coincidence?

This complaint merely repeats second-hand knowledge. It is utterly false about the nature of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, and reflects, instead of wrongdoing by the President, that there are some in the bowels of the government who have policy differences with him and wish to wound him. That will become more and more undeniable.

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official”

It's not First hand information, it's hearsay garbage.

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant lies, claiming that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/adam_schiffs_impeachment_fun_playhouse.html

Trump did not release anything fast. And he kept changing his story.

Boy are you guys snowed or what?

Trump released everything, so fast and unredacted that the Not So Swift on the Left were still demanding their release, when they had already been released at all the Left's false claims thoroughly debunked.

But charge on ahead with impeachment even though you don't have squat for High Crimes. You fully deserve what comes next with the Country realizes that you are contesting an election simply because you are a bunch of whiny self-entitled brats. You are going to grow from the consequences that will follow.

So much to look forward to!

You do realize that the transcript of the phone call isn’t actually a transcript right?

 

[Slade3200]

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

You may be right, we will find out.

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

 

[Slade3200]

And it shows plain corruption on the part of Trump.

Not the transcript I read. There was not a single illegal thing, or corrupt thing in it.

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not the transcript I read. There was not a single illegal thing, or corrupt thing in it.

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

I’m against impeachment too. Think he should be voted out by the people next year

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

You may be right, we will find out.

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

You may be right, we will find out.

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

STATEMENT: "Impeachment is not a legal process"

RESPONSE: WHAT!!! Impeachment appears in Art. I, II and III in the Law of the Land, The Constitution. OMG you people are so STUPID.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

I’m against impeachment too. Think he should be voted out by the people next year

Let's see, we have employment records broken with all minority groups and women. The lowest unemployment in 50 years, and the direction we are heading, likely to break that record as well. Consumer confidence, business confidence, small business confidence are also the highest it's been in over a decade. A huge decrease in government dependency. An all time high in median household income.

You're correct. WTF were we thinking? Let's get rid of this guy already.

 

[Slade3200]

You may be right, we will find out.

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

 

[Slade3200]

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

I’m against impeachment too. Think he should be voted out by the people next year

Let's see, we have employment records broken with all minority groups and women. The lowest unemployment in 50 years, and the direction we are heading, likely to break that record as well. Consumer confidence, business confidence, small business confidence are also the highest it's been in over a decade. A huge decrease in government dependency. An all time high in median household income.

You're correct. WTF were we thinking? Let's get rid of this guy already.

That’s where our economy was in 2016 except then all the unemployment numbers were fake and our economy was a disaster, right?! It’s all branding. Don’t be a puppet

 

[beagle9]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

You guys aren't fooling anyone. You have been trying to overturn the election since his victory was declared, we WANT the nation to understand you folks better, and this will result in a huge tune-in and when they see you are trying to impeach the President because you do not accept the decision of the US Electorate, it's clear who you are really attacking, The American People.

Trump tricked Not So Swift Schiff, by releasing the transcripts, the IG report and the Whistle Blower complaints, so fast, and redaction free, that hapless Democrats were still demanding their release after thy had already been released and Democrat claims about them fully debunked.

At first, some Democrats claimed that the transcript was faked. It wasn’t. Two CIA employees detailed to the White House made the transcription. Others claimed the ellipses in the transcript revealed hidden redactions. Actually, they simply signified a pause by the speaker. Interestingly, sometime between May 2018 and August of this year, the form for filing a whistleblower report was changed substantially with little if any notice. As of May 24, 2018 the relevant Form (IC IG ICWPA FORM 401) required the report involve “urgent concerns,” be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” You think that sells as coincidence?

This complaint merely repeats second-hand knowledge. It is utterly false about the nature of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, and reflects, instead of wrongdoing by the President, that there are some in the bowels of the government who have policy differences with him and wish to wound him. That will become more and more undeniable.

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official”

It's not First hand information, it's hearsay garbage.

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant lies, claiming that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/adam_schiffs_impeachment_fun_playhouse.html

Sounds like another Kavanaugh hit job to me.

 

[beagle9]

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

Trying to link stuff together by speculation is insufficient. Must have facts and not speculation.

 

[beagle9]

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

I’m against impeachment too. Think he should be voted out by the people next year

Let's see, we have employment records broken with all minority groups and women. The lowest unemployment in 50 years, and the direction we are heading, likely to break that record as well. Consumer confidence, business confidence, small business confidence are also the highest it's been in over a decade. A huge decrease in government dependency. An all time high in median household income.

You're correct. WTF were we thinking? Let's get rid of this guy already.

That’s where our economy was in 2016 except then all the unemployment numbers were fake and our economy was a disaster, right?! It’s all branding. Don’t be a puppet

Bullcrap it all was.

 

[Zorro!]

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

Mmmmmh. Seems like the guy you are replying too left some very important things out of Turner's statement, ehhh? Kinda like the Fake News Media cutting 500 words out of the transcript when they report on it. That crap's not going to fly in a Senate trial. They either have High Crimes or they have a farce. They will not be able to fool the American People.

 

[Zorro!]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

You guys aren't fooling anyone. You have been trying to overturn the election since his victory was declared, we WANT the nation to understand you folks better, and this will result in a huge tune-in and when they see you are trying to impeach the President because you do not accept the decision of the US Electorate, it's clear who you are really attacking, The American People.

Trump tricked Not So Swift Schiff, by releasing the transcripts, the IG report and the Whistle Blower complaints, so fast, and redaction free, that hapless Democrats were still demanding their release after thy had already been released and Democrat claims about them fully debunked.

At first, some Democrats claimed that the transcript was faked. It wasn’t. Two CIA employees detailed to the White House made the transcription. Others claimed the ellipses in the transcript revealed hidden redactions. Actually, they simply signified a pause by the speaker. Interestingly, sometime between May 2018 and August of this year, the form for filing a whistleblower report was changed substantially with little if any notice. As of May 24, 2018 the relevant Form (IC IG ICWPA FORM 401) required the report involve “urgent concerns,” be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” You think that sells as coincidence?

This complaint merely repeats second-hand knowledge. It is utterly false about the nature of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, and reflects, instead of wrongdoing by the President, that there are some in the bowels of the government who have policy differences with him and wish to wound him. That will become more and more undeniable.

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official”

It's not First hand information, it's hearsay garbage.

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant lies, claiming that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/adam_schiffs_impeachment_fun_playhouse.html

Trump did not release anything fast. And he kept changing his story.

Boy are you guys snowed or what?

Trump released everything, so fast and unredacted that the Not So Swift on the Left were still demanding their release, when they had already been released at all the Left's false claims thoroughly debunked.

But charge on ahead with impeachment even though you don't have squat for High Crimes. You fully deserve what comes next with the Country realizes that you are contesting an election simply because you are a bunch of whiny self-entitled brats. You are going to grow from the consequences that will follow.

So much to look forward to!

You do realize that the transcript of the phone call isn’t actually a transcript right?

What are you claiming?

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Not the transcript I read. There was not a single illegal thing, or corrupt thing in it.

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

Are you such a pathetic lemming, that you can't think for yourself? No wonder the left-wing wants to control the media... because apparently all left-wingers are mindless robots.

Really? Someone said it, and so you personally no longer need the mental capacity to think for yourself, and look at the evidence on your own, and determine if there was anything actually wrong? You just hear someone say "Trump Bad" and you mindlessly parrot it like a good little pawn of the establishment?

At least this explains how you guys can run around screaming about the evil rich, while endlessly support the elite rich in our society.

No, I don't give a crap about any of that, because you people lie too much. I read the transcript of the phone call myself. There was nothing in there that was illegal. Nothing.

Maybe you are not man enough to think for yourself, but I am. There was no quid pro quo. He did not say "Until you investigate Biden, I'm not giving you the cash". The entire phone call was about corruption generally, and the only one single sentence in the entire transcript had anything to do with Biden, and it only said that it looked terrible, that Biden openly boasted that he specifically told them to fire a prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company where Biden's son worked at, and that Biden would specifically withhold funds, unless they fired him. They fired him. He released the funds.

Biden directly engaged in quid pro quo. So you are accusing Trump of doing exactly what Biden directly and specifically did. Difference being that Volodymyr Zelensky said he would not open an investigation into Biden, and didn't. And Trump released the funds.

Biden got the prosecutor fired. And did not release the funds, and said he wouldn't, until after the prosecutor was fired. He was. Biden did.

This phone call proves only that Democrats, as per usual, have a double standard. Quid pro quo with Biden... perfectly fine. No quid pro quo, but accusation of quid pro quo with Trump... that's bad.

This entire thing, just makes left-wingers look like the terrible useless trash they are.

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

Well said. I agree

American men agrees with trump

And that is what counts