Army officer twice reported concerns about Trump's Ukraine tactics

Nothing was held up??!

 

Presidents have a history of using personal envoys. Whyvare youvaganst investigating possible corruption at the highest levels?

 

The money was sent before the timeline for it expired.

 

Wtf does Crowdstrike and the so-called "missing DNC server" have to do with corruption???

Trump wanted the president of Ukraine to investigate a long-dead wild goose chase on the 2016 election in order to get congressionally approved military aid and a sit-down meeting with Trump.

That is corrupt and it is a quid pro quo.

no president has the right to hold up congressionally approved foreign aid in order to get dirt on a political opponent or to get a foreign entity to investigate a wild goose chase

 

Personal envoys? So Rudy wasn’t working as trumps personal lawyer?

 

Threatening to hold up military aid in order to force a foreign leader to investigate a wild goose chase from the 2016 election is corruption. And a crime.

 

So it WAS held up. And why? What changed to get it released?

 

the USA held up releasing foreign aid to Ukraine so as to try to force them to investigate Trump's wild goose chase from 2016 regarding crowdstrike and the DNC server.

This was a crime

 

I didn't talk about a favor. I just quoted what Trump said.

If, as you say, there is an appearance of corruption, it is up to the American authorities to investigate that (under FCPA corruption by either of the Bidens in Ukraine would be a criminal offence in USA) and then to ask the Ukrainian authorities for help / support in that investigation.

That is not what happened. Trump asked a foreign country to start a criminal investigation into his main political opponent. Seriously, there is no other conclusion than that he was trying to get help with the election. He mentioned his main political opponent by name, didn't mention anyone else, and didn't mention corruption generally.

You guys are trying to spin the narrative to make it look like he did nothing wrong, but he did.

And that is leaving aside the fact that he held up hundreds of millions in aid that all his officials said he should release, then finally released it ONLY after the story broke that his actions WRT Ukraine were under scrutiny.

FFS the guy is corrupt.

 

Illegal is not required for impeachment.

Why is it that every single Trump supporter clings to that one litmus test? It seems that to his supporters, no matter what nastiness he gets up to, it's okay as long as no one can prove he broke any laws. What about ethics? What about honor? Neither of those have ever applied to Donald Trump, but his supporters don't care. I just don't understand that.

 

Trump attempted to solicit foreign assistance in his election campaign.

That is a campaign-finance violation and a crime

 

The substance is being exposed despite desperate attempts to conceal it, smear the messengers, and lie about their revelations.

I'm perfectly amenable to the process to ascertain the truth. Some are, understandably, in a snit over it.

 

Democrats have yet to prove he did anything impeachment worthy. But in their minds everything is impeachment worth because it's Trump.

HE'S still your president.

 

Just as an obstruction charge does not require a proven underlying crime, this extreme abuse of the power of his office did not need to be successful in order to impeach him for it, not does it need to be an actual violation of federal code.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The "high Crimes" can be whatever congress deems them to be. Abuse of power would certainly fall into that category IMHO.

He did it.
He admitted it.
Testimony and documentation corroborates it.
He's getting impeached for it.

 

You can read his opening statement:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...ndmans-opening-statement-on-trump-and-ukraine

It may be a couple of weeks yet before we get to see, hear, or read the transcripts of all of these hearings.

 

Yeah, ok I read it again .. nothing impeachable there

 

A position on the National Security Counsel would take him outside of the normal military chain of command. He reported to Dr. Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to John Bolton, the National Security Advisor.

Vindman reported his concerns to Dr. Hill, and to the NSC's lead counsel, John Eisenberg.

As for your claim that this "changes nothing," I guess we'll see. I think it changes much, since Vindman was on that call, as well as one back in April. Read his opening statement.

 

everyone has read his opening statement there is nothing there. except that He accurately predicted how his conversation would be misconstrued.

you don't have to like it but Ukraine had nothing to do with 2020 until you can prove that it did..
unless they get something a lot more substantive than that this impeachment inquiry is DOA and so is the DNC

it's really coming across as another bitter attempt to subvert the 2018 election

the media already has Trump hanged which I believe is all Pelosi ever wanted, as i have stated many times i think it's a political ploy not a real impeachment.. but we will see but this guy and the phone call have nothing impeachable..

 

The problem with the Mueller Report is that few of us have even bothered to read it, and too many of us have fallen for the "exoneration" bullpucky coming from the WH and from Trump's pet AG, Barr. And even among those who've read it, many don't understand the conclusions that weren't written as conclusions in Volume II. Mueller did no one any favors with his handling of the obstruction evidence.

This abuse of power involving Ukraine is simple, direct, and very provable, even for the average American voter's IQ which, sorry to say, isn't very high. Sadly, Trump's dwindling base still doesn't get it.

 

what abuse of power?

 

So wrong, it's hard to know where to start. Let's start with a couple of words. It isn't about hatred, it's about disgust and abhorrence.

disgust, noun

1. a feeling of revulsion or strong disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive.

abhorrence, noun

1. a feeling of repulsion; disgusted loathing.

To simplify: Donald J. Trump is an a**hole, and most people, including most Americans, are disgusted by a**holes.

 

Yes, so what so is Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and all the rest of them.. you are singling out Trump because you hate him.

Nothing Trump has done is as bad as lying to congress about sex .

 

Trying to get Ukraine to investigate his 2016 wild goose chase about the DNC server, by withholding military aid

 

that's your opinion...

 

Oh ffs. If Obama had held up aid to Ukraine until and unless they started an investigation into Donald Trump's dealings with the corrupt officials in Azerbaijan (I'll let you look that up yourself), you'd be chanting "lock him up" with a MAGA hat on your head. Admit it and move on. Trump is guilty of many corrupt acts, same as he's been his whole life, but as president, accountability is finally slapping him upside the head.

Sorry. It's always a bummer when your hero turns out to be a dud.