Republicans call for transparency in impeachment inquiry

still have reading problems I see.

 

Surely this is just a vain attempt at humor......

 

It is astounding how anyone can be so consistently wrong on basic factual things (as opposed to opinions). An impeachment inquiry is nothing like a grand jury. And grand juries are not anywhere near a portion of an impeachment inquiry.

 

Couldn't be easier: President is guilty of treason, bribery and/or other high crimes and misdemeanors, he must be removed. So saith the Constitution. You don't agree with that? Then you don't agree with the Constitution. End of story.

"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." -Donald Trump

Sorry, but Trump's mandate does not work outside his cult. Especially when "what you're reading" is the Constitution.

 

The president is nowhere guilty and there is no reasonable suspicion that he is guilty of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. The gladiators at the gate are just shouting those accusations because he beat there behind in a fair election. They have been touting impeachment before Trump was even president -- an impossibility.

 

You are wasting your time with this guy. He knows nothing about the Constitution, and he makes things up as he goes along. Truth doesn't matter to him. Only what fits his current argument matters to him.

Which makes him the perfect Trumpet. He is just doing what Trump and a tiny minority of House Republicans are doing.

He wants to waste your time.

 

You have repeated your fantasy so much, in your mind it is no longer fantasy.

 

The Constitution says that the purpose of the impeachment process is to determine that. I have never read anywhere saying that you determine that. So I say again: seems to me like you don't like the Constitution much.

 

The White House transcript of the July 25 phone call clearly shows that Trump asked for foreign interference in our Presidential election for his political advantage. Trump confirmed it himself to a national television audience. Various witnesses -- some still working for the White House -- also confirm Trump's request for foreign interference in our election, a violation of federal law.

Various witnesses -- some still working for the White House -- confirm the quid pro quo, or extortion, part of the phone call, Trump's chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed quid pro quo was used in the conversation and admitted extortion was standard procedure in the Trump administration. "Get over it," he said.

Do you think it is okay for a President to ask for foreign interference in our Presidential election?

Do you think it is okay for a President to use extortion on a foreign power for his political benefit?

Wouldn't you agree that any President who used such methods should be impeached and removed from office?

 

Trump did not ask for assistance for his political advantage. The Biden request was a part of the overall and only concern with excessive well-known corruption in Ukraine. Biden was a reasonable suspect in being part of that. He is a tape bragging, as Vice President, about his shakedown of Ukraine. Various witnesses opinionated quid pro quo; they did not confirm it. Mulvany did not confirm it in the context being used. He confirmed generic quid pro quo between heads of state which happens all the time.

Not likely. Neither for campaign financial violations especially, unlike Obama, if there wasn't any. Neither for calling fake news fake news. Neither for obstruction of justice. Neither for being uncooperative with congress (Nixon). Maybe neither for perjury (Clinton). And certainly neither for winning an election.

 

For the sake of argument let's assume that is correct.........even though it isn't. It is not appropriate, nor is it legal, to ask a foreign government to investigate a US citizen in order to obtain campaign material to be used against someone.
Besides, you are missing an obvious point. The pressure being put on Ukraine by Slimy Rudy and Sondland centered around their desire (Trump's desire) to have Ukraine officials announce they were launching an investigation of the Biden's. That is all Don needed in order to smear Old Joe. Any expectation something of consequence would turn up, which was founded on baseless conspiracy theories, was secondary to getting them to make the announcement. Not coincidentally, the same is true about Don's attacks on Hillary. It's the innuendo he wants.......the suggestion of wrongdoing. That way he can endlessly use the idea, planted in the heads of the minions, of impropriety to smear his opponents without real evidence. In the end, that's the goal. Proof of actual wrongdoing is unnecessary.......and elusive.

 

If that were the case, why didn't the "favor" he asked in order to not withhold military aid, be about investigating if Manafort had any other accomplice we don't know about. That would be really dangerous, especially if there is one still in his government.

Or why not corruption in Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince recently ordered the murder of a Washington Post journalist? Or Philippines, or Russia, or.... any of the other countries where corruption is basically "a way of life"?

Let's be clear... I don't know what you are trying to accomplish with this absurd narrative. But, other than telling yourself "Hey! I got a talking point to respond with!" it's not going to accomplish much. This kind of absurd responses works for politicians who want to avoid looking like co-conspirators by staying silent when the press asks them. But it's ridiculous to believe that they have any effect whatsoever anywhere else.

There are two instances in which these made up talking points might be used in a conversation or debate:

1- With another Trump loyalist: Useless. Trump loyalists would forgive Trump anyway, even if he stood in the middle of 5th Avenue and shot somebody.

2- With somebody who is not a Trump loyalist: Useless. Even people who are not following this already know Trump. Some might not have made up their mind about whether Trump should be removed, but they do know that he lies, and that the last thing Trump is "concerned" about is corruption.

So, other than to make each other feel "good"... I don't know what purpose you think these absurd talking points would have.You're not a politician. You are not obligated to answer to the press. So why do you even bother? It certainly doesn't make you look good.

 

Governments ask other governments for investigative help all the time. It is only opinion, based on nothing besides desire, that the request was for campaign help.. There was rampant corruption in the Ukraine and there was a braggadocios taped confession that a VP of the United States might have been involved. Do you think it inappropriate to investigate criminal activity if a suspect by happenstance might be an election opponent?

 

The monetary aid was held up long before the call and without any reference whatsoever to Biden. It was held up solely to get some assurance that the new government would effectively mitigate its corruption. I have no idea what Manafort has to do with this. His only involvement was with the DNC asking Ukraine for help and information against Manafort to help their campaign in 2016.

None of your examples match the corruption that was rampant in the Ukraine and tied to our money. And as far as I know none receive military monetary aid from us.

 

For the sake of argument let's say that's true. There are two elements to Don's request you are ignoring making it inappropriate/illegal. 1. The request was made in regards to information about a potential political opponent of Don's. 2. Military aid was being withheld when the request was made.

Besides, your ridiculous denial argument is soon to be outdated.

Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

"A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.

In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe."

 

As I said in my earlier post the request was not made for help on the 2020 campaign. It was made because of the rampant corruption in Ukraine and a recording of a VP bragging about his corruption in Ukraine. I also said Biden had absolutely nothing to do with the temporary withholding of military. All of the first hand participants in the strategy meetings about the aid say Biden never came up and was in nobody's thoughts or mind.

Why should I care about other opinions on what kind of quid pro quo there was, if any? I could care less what others think unless they have rational unbiased first hand knowledge of it.

 

Yes, it was. Time to get on board with the new line of defense. The narrative you are using has no credibility and thus is being abandoned.

 

At the end of the day, Democrats will impeach the President, the President will remain in office, and the American voters will demonstrate their displeasure towards the left at the polls.

Trump will win re-election in 2020...

 

No! The bill passed in September 2018. Almost immediately the pressure campaign to seek dirt on Biden started. The Trump-Zelensky call was on April 21, 2019. The same day Zelensky was elected. The money wasn't released until September 11, 2019
That was after the Whistleblower complaing (August 12), after Taylor complained about the money being withheld (September 8 and 9) and Bolton was fired (September 10)

 

Well, your narrative is 100% opinion and hearsay which by definition is zero credibility. The fact that many agree changes nothing.

 

The consideration meetings took place in February and March (and later). It was a question regarding the possible election of Z but a major concern before that. The fact remains that every first hand account of the strategy meetings say without question that Biden was never brought up.

 

You are flailing.

"The pivot (meaning the change in the narrative away from yours) was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting."

If Don's defenders persist with your narrative they will be laughed out of the Senate trial.

 

Rod,

Here is the new line of defense.

“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”

However, that narrative falls apart under scrutiny when one examines the testimony of numerous officials familiar with Trumps motivations. I suspect we'll be hearing from more witnesses, voluntarily or not, who will confirm Don's penchant for getting dirt on Biden.

 

I'm not flailing. I said I could not care less about the opinions and scuttlebutt of others with no knowledge. It does not matter if those opinionators are Republican, Democrat, Arab, government officials, or posters on PF. You can cite your opinion until the cows come home. But until you have verifiable knowledge, I don't give a rat's ass, in all due respect of course.

 

Nope.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/7681...rruption-but-advocates-say-his-record-is-weak

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/7644...ertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup