Where Are the 'High Crimes'?

[The Purge]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes. That was Biden for sure!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Why stop there?
I mean, there's no factual basis for these charges - why not make up a few more?

He bribed the Ukraine into doing him a personal political favor...

Repeating charges that have no factual basis does not change the fact they have no factual basis.

Hoping enough people ignore the facts and witnesses is truly the only hope ol'Trumpybear has.

Thank you for demonstrating you know there is no factual basis for the charges your laid out.

 

[The Purge]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can you provide the definition of a 'high crime"?

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:

The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime?

Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.

Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.

Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.

Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.

Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?

Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a $50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.

Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.

Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.

Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?

Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?

A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.

But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal nationalism"?

And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid goes to Ukraine?

The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?

Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.

Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.

The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent even more weapons.

But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC, not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what U.S. foreign policy should be.

The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.

This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.

And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.

More at Townhall.com ^ | November 5, 2019 | Pat Buchanan
------------

Schitt's handling of the impeachment prologue suggests he's being instructed
from the "How to Have a Trial in a Banana Republic Manual."

Schitt's reading into the Congressional Record, his version of the Trump/Ukraine telephone call,
which Schiff called a "parody" is reminiscent of banana republic courts. (135 Republicans call for Schitt to be censure over supposed parady)

In Woody Allen's "Banana's" movie classic, the courtroom scene has Mellish (Allen) defending himself from a series
of incriminating witnesses, including a reigning Miss America and a middle-aged Afro-American woman claiming to be
J. Edgar Hoover in disguise.

One of the witnesses does provide testimony favorable to Mellish, but when asked to read back the testimony,
the court clerk, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition.

Did Donald Trump secretly ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump- through his minions- pressure Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were investigating his political rivals?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump withhold funds until Ukraine told him that they would make the public announcement?
Yes.

That in the end Ukraine didn't comply with the President's pressure doesn't change what he tried to do.

If a husband pays a guy $5k to kill his wife, and then the guy doesn't try kill his wife- does that mean the husband is not guilty of attempted murder?

That the President failed in his secret attempt to pressure a foreign leader into messing with the U.S. election doesn't mean he didn't commit an impeachable offense.

No, he asked to look into Biden corruption!

Hunter Biden's Ukraine Gas Firm Urged Obama Admin To End Corruption Allegations, Report ...

17 hours ago · ... employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election,” Solomon

 

[BlindBoo]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes. That was Biden for sure!!!

Sure sure, Joe was setting up a private back channels and removing obstacles to subvert the official lines of communication so his nefarious plans would remain hidden too.

Your defense is like air resistance in a vacuum.

 

[SAYIT]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:

The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime?

Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.

Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.

Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.

Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.

Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?

Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a $50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.

Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.

Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.

Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?

Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?

A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.

But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal nationalism"?

And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid goes to Ukraine?

The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?

Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.

Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.

The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent even more weapons.

But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC, not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what U.S. foreign policy should be.

The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.

This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.

And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.

More at Townhall.com ^ | November 5, 2019 | Pat Buchanan
------------

Schitt's handling of the impeachment prologue suggests he's being instructed
from the "How to Have a Trial in a Banana Republic Manual."

Schitt's reading into the Congressional Record, his version of the Trump/Ukraine telephone call,
which Schiff called a "parody" is reminiscent of banana republic courts. (135 Republicans call for Schitt to be censure over supposed parady)

In Woody Allen's "Banana's" movie classic, the courtroom scene has Mellish (Allen) defending himself from a series
of incriminating witnesses, including a reigning Miss America and a middle-aged Afro-American woman claiming to be
J. Edgar Hoover in disguise.

One of the witnesses does provide testimony favorable to Mellish, but when asked to read back the testimony,
the court clerk, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition.

If I may parody Adam Schiffty: "Trump is a poopy-head."

 

[The Purge]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes. That was Biden for sure!!!

Sure sure, Joe was setting up a private back channels and removing obstacles to subvert the official lines of communication so his nefarious plans would remain hidden too.

Your defense is like air resistance in a vacuum.

Your mind is a vacuum....you suck but facts never enter.....$50 k a week for sonny is a damn good testimony to Biden corruption!

 

[Syriusly]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can you provide the definition of a 'high crime"?

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:

The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime?

Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.

Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.

Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.

Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.

Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?

Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a $50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.

Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.

Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.

Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?

Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?

A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.

But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal nationalism"?

And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid goes to Ukraine?

The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?

Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.

Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.

The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent even more weapons.

But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC, not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what U.S. foreign policy should be.

The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.

This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.

And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.

More at Townhall.com ^ | November 5, 2019 | Pat Buchanan
------------

Schitt's handling of the impeachment prologue suggests he's being instructed
from the "How to Have a Trial in a Banana Republic Manual."

Schitt's reading into the Congressional Record, his version of the Trump/Ukraine telephone call,
which Schiff called a "parody" is reminiscent of banana republic courts. (135 Republicans call for Schitt to be censure over supposed parady)

In Woody Allen's "Banana's" movie classic, the courtroom scene has Mellish (Allen) defending himself from a series
of incriminating witnesses, including a reigning Miss America and a middle-aged Afro-American woman claiming to be
J. Edgar Hoover in disguise.

One of the witnesses does provide testimony favorable to Mellish, but when asked to read back the testimony,
the court clerk, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition.

Did Donald Trump secretly ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump- through his minions- pressure Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were investigating his political rivals?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump withhold funds until Ukraine told him that they would make the public announcement?
Yes.

That in the end Ukraine didn't comply with the President's pressure doesn't change what he tried to do.

If a husband pays a guy $5k to kill his wife, and then the guy doesn't try kill his wife- does that mean the husband is not guilty of attempted murder?

That the President failed in his secret attempt to pressure a foreign leader into messing with the U.S. election doesn't mean he didn't commit an impeachable offense.

No, he asked to look into Biden corruption!n

Trump made a secret call to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival. And pressured the President of the Ukraine to make a public declaration of an investigation- a public declaration that would not be linked to Trump.

Just because Trump failed in his corruption attempt doesn't mean it isn't an impeachable offense.

Just like if Trump paid a prostitute for sex- but didn't have the sex- its still solicitation.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's exactly what Vladimir wants you to think.

Bwuhahahahahaha......

Hey snowflake, the 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia' was debunked by your cited, beloved Mueller long ago...and hilariously you and your fellow snowflakes keep proving you just can't let the LIE go.....

Trump told you that over and over and over and you believe him, but it was and is a lie. Mueller never debunked collusion, in fact, he found evidence of collusion. What he didn't find was evidence for charging conspiracy and collusion by itself isn't a crime.

That's nonsense.
Mueller only said he couldn’t clear Trump.

Weird.

It's never the job of a prosecutor to CLEAR anyone.

Their job is to find crimes worthy of an indictment.
They knew going in there were none. Mueller was there to destroy evidence of criminal activity by the Obama administration and to hopefully get Trump to commit crimes in a cover up. Mueller destroyed emails that proved a conspiracy by FBI officials.to set up Trump. The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room.

The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room

You are the gullible voter that Trump loves........

Says the gullible little shit that repeats fake news as if it's a fact.

 

[Syriusly]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes. That was Biden for sure!!!

Sure sure, Joe was setting up a private back channels and removing obstacles to subvert the official lines of communication so his nefarious plans would remain hidden too.

Your defense is like air resistance in a vacuum.

Your mind is a vacuum....you suck but facts never enter.....$50 k a week for sonny is a damn good testimony to Biden corruption!

$50K a week for Hunter is a damn good testimony to how idiotic companies will pay people for their name- Biden.....Trump......

You have any evidence of corruption- other than your speculation- give it to us.

 

[Syriusly]

That's exactly what Vladimir wants you to think.

Bwuhahahahahaha......

Hey snowflake, the 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia' was debunked by your cited, beloved Mueller long ago...and hilariously you and your fellow snowflakes keep proving you just can't let the LIE go.....

Trump told you that over and over and over and you believe him, but it was and is a lie. Mueller never debunked collusion, in fact, he found evidence of collusion. What he didn't find was evidence for charging conspiracy and collusion by itself isn't a crime.

That's nonsense.
Mueller only said he couldn’t clear Trump.

Weird.

It's never the job of a prosecutor to CLEAR anyone.

Their job is to find crimes worthy of an indictment.
They knew going in there were none. Mueller was there to destroy evidence of criminal activity by the Obama administration and to hopefully get Trump to commit crimes in a cover up. Mueller destroyed emails that proved a conspiracy by FBI officials.to set up Trump. The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room.

The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room

You are the gullible voter that Trump loves........

Says the gullible little shit that repeats fake news as if it's a fact.
]

LOL- no- I never just parrot the Fake News your Orange Messiah spews out

 

[The Purge]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can you provide the definition of a 'high crime"?

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:

The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime?

Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.

Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.

Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.

Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.

Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?

Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a $50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.

Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.

Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.

Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?

Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?

A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.

But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal nationalism"?

And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid goes to Ukraine?

The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?

Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.

Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.

The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent even more weapons.

But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC, not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what U.S. foreign policy should be.

The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.

This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.

And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.

More at Townhall.com ^ | November 5, 2019 | Pat Buchanan
------------

Schitt's handling of the impeachment prologue suggests he's being instructed
from the "How to Have a Trial in a Banana Republic Manual."

Schitt's reading into the Congressional Record, his version of the Trump/Ukraine telephone call,
which Schiff called a "parody" is reminiscent of banana republic courts. (135 Republicans call for Schitt to be censure over supposed parady)

In Woody Allen's "Banana's" movie classic, the courtroom scene has Mellish (Allen) defending himself from a series
of incriminating witnesses, including a reigning Miss America and a middle-aged Afro-American woman claiming to be
J. Edgar Hoover in disguise.

One of the witnesses does provide testimony favorable to Mellish, but when asked to read back the testimony,
the court clerk, replies with an entirely different, wholly unfavorable rendition.

Did Donald Trump secretly ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump- through his minions- pressure Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were investigating his political rivals?
Yes.
Did Donald Trump withhold funds until Ukraine told him that they would make the public announcement?
Yes.

That in the end Ukraine didn't comply with the President's pressure doesn't change what he tried to do.

If a husband pays a guy $5k to kill his wife, and then the guy doesn't try kill his wife- does that mean the husband is not guilty of attempted murder?

That the President failed in his secret attempt to pressure a foreign leader into messing with the U.S. election doesn't mean he didn't commit an impeachable offense.

No, he asked to look into Biden corruption!n

Trump made a secret call to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival. And pressured the President of the Ukraine to make a public declaration of an investigation- a public declaration that would not be linked to Trump.

Just because Trump failed in his corruption attempt doesn't mean it isn't an impeachable offense.

Just like if Trump paid a prostitute for sex- but didn't have the sex- its still solicitation.

More FAKE NEWS and LIES from a known Anti-American!

 

[easyt65]

no- I never just parrot the Fake News your orang messiah spews out....

You just did....

Bwuhahahaha

 

[The Purge]

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.

Which of these did Trump commit?

Bribery specifically. High Crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Yes. That was Biden for sure!!!

Sure sure, Joe was setting up a private back channels and removing obstacles to subvert the official lines of communication so his nefarious plans would remain hidden too.

Your defense is like air resistance in a vacuum.

Your mind is a vacuum....you suck but facts never enter.....$50 k a week for sonny is a damn good testimony to Biden corruption!

$50K a week for Hunter is a damn good testimony to how idiotic companies will pay people for their name- Biden.....Trump......

You have any evidence of corruption- other than your speculation- give it to us.

Idiot!!!!!

Hunter Biden's Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations ...

20 hours ago · John Solomon Reports ... Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the ... to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter ...

 

[easyt65]

'Lalalalalalala - I can't hear you!'
-- Snowflakes

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the left and the right are merely mirror images of each other.

The last 4 years has proven otherwise....

nope, they have proven it even more.

you are the perfect example with your 15 "we got them now" threads a week....no different than the "we got Trump now" folks

 

[Muhammed]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can you provide the definition of a 'high crime"?

A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice

Funny, YOU could have just used a search engine!

Actually, No...

"High crime" in the context under discussion (per the COTUS Article II Section 4) is whatever Congress says it is, If the HoR wants to impeach POTUS for not chewing his/her food thoroughly enough then it has the Constitutional Authority to declare it a "high crime and/or misdemeanor" and impeach him/her for it, the Senate can then also convict him/her for it.

There was that eating pizza with a fork incident that had the moonbatosphere in an uproar. And who can forget when TIME got the scoop on the two scoops of ice cream scandal.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bwuhahahahahaha......

Hey snowflake, the 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia' was debunked by your cited, beloved Mueller long ago...and hilariously you and your fellow snowflakes keep proving you just can't let the LIE go.....

Trump told you that over and over and over and you believe him, but it was and is a lie. Mueller never debunked collusion, in fact, he found evidence of collusion. What he didn't find was evidence for charging conspiracy and collusion by itself isn't a crime.

That's nonsense.
Mueller only said he couldn’t clear Trump.

Weird.

It's never the job of a prosecutor to CLEAR anyone.

Their job is to find crimes worthy of an indictment.
They knew going in there were none. Mueller was there to destroy evidence of criminal activity by the Obama administration and to hopefully get Trump to commit crimes in a cover up. Mueller destroyed emails that proved a conspiracy by FBI officials.to set up Trump. The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room.

The journalist that discovered this fact died suddenly from an mysterious infection in a San Diego hotel room

You are the gullible voter that Trump loves........

Says the gullible little shit that repeats fake news as if it's a fact.
]

LOL- no- I never just parrot the Fake News your Orange Messiah spews out

You're doing it today.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Can you provide the definition of a 'high crime"?

A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice

Funny, YOU could have just used a search engine!

Actually, No...

"High crime" in the context under discussion (per the COTUS Article II Section 4) is whatever Congress says it is, If the HoR wants to impeach POTUS for not chewing his/her food thoroughly enough then it has the Constitutional Authority to declare it a "high crime and/or misdemeanor" and impeach him/her for it, the Senate can then also convict him/her for it.

There was that eating pizza with a fork incident that had the moonbatosphere in an uproar. And who can forget when TIME got the scoop on the two scoops of ice cream scandal.

or the time he wore a tan suit jacket

 

[g5000]

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

If lying about a blowjob is a high crime and misdemeanor, then extorting a foreign power for dirt on a political rival for personal political gain is a many orders of magnitude greater high crime and misdemeanor.

 

[easyt65]

nope, they have proven it even more.

ZERO: The Number of Trump Associates / Republicans Indicted for anything having to do with the treasonous 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia'

Democrats: Comey, McCabe, Strzok - Recommended For Indictment for evidence of crimes committed in their roles in the treasonous 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia'

Expected Indictments from FISA Court Abuse Report:
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS: Rosenstein, Comey, Brennan, Clapper

Protected a proven criminal to keep them on the Ballot:
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Demanded the US AG BREAK THE LAW:
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Censured the US AG for refusing to break the law:
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Set the record for criminal non-compliance of the FOIA & FRA
- DEMOCRATS - OBAMA, NOT REPUBLICANS

Video-taped confession of extorting Ukraine PM:
- DEMOCRATS - BIDEN, NOT REPUBLICANS

Purchased Russian-authored Counter-Intel Propaganda from a foreign spy working for the FBI
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Sent Reps to collaborate with corrupt foreign Ukraine politicians to get dirt to alter a Presidential election:
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Exposed for facilitating Chinese Espionage for DECADES - No call to investigate
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Connected To Epstein / Pedophile Island - Former President wearing a dress hanging on wall on Pedo-Island
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Holding secret behind-closed-door partisan inquisitions, violating accused's Constitutional Rights, refusing to allow equal calling of witnesses / questions to be asked
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

Investigation being run by a known LIAR, admitted classified info leaker, and politician compromised by a Russian-born arms dealer who did business with corrupt former Ukraine politicians and paid the politician money
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

4 years of continuous sedition, failed coup attempts, attempts to un-do the 2016 election after calling for the removal from office of the President before he ever entered the WH
- DEMOCRATS, NOT REPUBLICANS

....Yeah, I can see your point.....Bwuhahahahahaha.....

etc.......