The purpose of Impeachment.

You think so? I've always thought of him as more intelligent than that.

 

It shouldn't be that difficult. You said to the framers and founders tyranny equaled monarchy. I said you were wrong. Among other things they said the tyranny of the majority is every bit as bad as the tyranny of a monarch. If you can't understand that, I cannot help. If you just want to ignore what I said, be my guest.

Interesting to hear you readily admit to the coup d'état.

 

Absurd. This whole thing has been orchestrated since 2016 it is obvious. It's Genesis was foreign involvement against a political candidate (Donald Trump) by way of a fake dossier paid for by the HRC political campaign. It was used to obtain a FISA warrant so that campaign could be spied on. It was renewed 3 times by partisan political hacks and we will know much more starting Monday.

 

What is wrong with this? Isn't it quid pro quo that Trump is suspect of? Is Biden immune from investigation merely because he has become a political candidate? Isn't there a treaty signed by Bill Clinton that the Ukraine would cooperate in regards to corruption? Did not his wife, Hillary, hire British and indirectly Russian spies to furnish a dossier that led to this whole impeachment process? This is all Democrat "just us".

 

Al Green, the leader of the Democratic Party said the reason for impeachment is that it is the only way Democrats can win the White House in 2020. The 2nd in charge, Maxine Waters, confirmed since she was calling for impeachment in 2017.

 

No extortion was shown and every witness was asked and none could produce and extortion. There was no extortion in the transcript. And I like lots of citizens have every interest in corruption, Trump ran on the fact that we send money to corrupt countries and he would not, our own government was well aware of the corruption going on the Hunter Biden was the most visible case and it STILL needs to be investigated. Don't you believe we need to find out what was going on there and how it was used to get Ukraine oligarchs access to our higher levels of government or other such benefits? Who was involved, who knew about it, were proper measures taken. You did catch during the testimony how when Hill was nominated to be the Ukraine ambassador she was given specific talking points about Hunter Biden and his involvement with those corrupt oligarchs to use in case she was asked. Why was that necessary?

"
Representative Elise Stefanik brought to light interesting information today surrounding how the Obama administration was concerned about issues surrounding Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his connection to a corrupt Ukraine company Burisma. This revelation directly contradicted the Yovanovitch opening statement.

During questioning Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch admitted the Obama White House spent time briefing her on how to respond to congress if questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma were raised. This testimony highlights the concerns by the Obama administration about a clear issue with the Biden family and corrupt Ukraine interests."
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...with-hunter-biden-and-burisma/comment-page-1/

 

Opinions are what will decide Trump's fate. If the opinion of the large majority of the American people, at the end of this process is that he's guilty, then he will be removed.

The problem you Trump loyalists have is that there is absolutely nothing that would move the needle in favor of Trump. No witnesses, no documents, no actions... nothing to save Trump. And quite a bit that indicts him. Plus more that comes out just about every day now... So, unless they change tactics, Republicans will decide how the removal occurs. They might decide that removing him in the Senate might salvage more of their seats. Or they might hope for something to happen in November so those "opinions" in November are less of a "blow" for them. They might even hope that the intervention of foreign governments like Russia, and possibly others, in our elections... might somehow flip the whole thing. Which is not impossible....

 

From the democrats viewpoint. Trump is a crazy illogical liar. Senile and whatever else they throw at him. Then at the same time they go through this elaborate logical process to show how he must be breaking the law or whatever else they think they can impeach him on. It is a remarkably inconsistent viewpoint. They are assigning logic to a person who they think is not logical. Bottom line, it is all circumstantial and will go nowhere in the senate. There used to be an old Japanese expression. "Rots of ruck GI."

 

I understand it, but now I'm wondering if you do. Because it's completely besides the point. There was no such thing as a "tyranny of the majority" in their life. It was just a hypothetical construct. Whereas the monarchy was very real to them.

Look... when I say that they identify "monarchy" with "tyranny"... that doesn't mean that they believed the words were synonyms. I clarify that, just in case that's why you are confused.

You consider making Nikki President "a coup"? Of all the scenarios possible for November, I think that would be the most "problematic" for Democrats. But I guess I wasn't aware that you don't like Nikki.

 

You are right. Trump did not say, "President Zelensky, investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens or I will withhold the military aid you need."

By stopping the aid days before the phone call, then asking for a favor, then asking for the investigations, Trump figured Zelensky was bright enough to catch on. Trump and mafia bosses always use subtle hints regarding their requests, never direct language.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted the reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied [Trump's chief of staff] Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

 

The word, "corruption," was not used by Trump in the April 21 call to Zelensky nor the July 25 call.

https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

 

All based on assumptions. "Trump is bad, therefore what he is doing must be bad." Unless you can prove Trump said "investigate or else", your impeachment is going nowhere. Live with it.

 

Now I get it!

It was Hillary Clinton who forced Trump to extort the President of Ukraine and to commit bribery.

How could I have been so blind!

 

Strawman.

 

Al Green is the leader of the Democratic Party?????

However, yes... I agree. If Trump is not impeached, it's likely he will find a way to perpetuate himself in power regardless of the will of the people.

That is exactly why the framers created the process of Impeachment.

Read the OP!!

 

To soothe your butt pain

 

Gordon Sondland: "I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
​

Damn those pesky facts!

 

Yay. Some state people attacking other state people. What a Christmas present.

 

it is only a fact if Trump said it.

 

We had already established that you don't know what a strawman is. No need to reinforce it...

 

You have done no such thing. It was a very classic strawman. Maybe not what you intended it to be, but that is how it came out.

 

You might want to change the complete criminal code of the United States to read something like "No criminal will be convicted unless they say the nature of their crime as they are committing it"

Who knows... at a minimum it might solve our prison overpopulation problem.

 

Yes

“Ambassador Sondland squarely states that he ‘did not know, (and still does not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.’ He also said he ‘presumed’ there was a link to the aid—but cannot identify any solid source for that assumption,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement on Tuesday.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469155-sondland-changes-quid-pro-quo-story


Q: "You testified, 'President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations?'"

Ambassador Sondland: "That's correct."
https://welovetrump.com/2019/11/20/...ever-heard-quid-pro-quo-from-president-trump/

 

A complete distortion. Most criminals who are convicted leave some kind of evidence rather than just opinions that they may have done something illegal.

 

nothing in your post is true