I fully believe President Trump intended to force Ukraine to find dirt on Biden for military aid.

I agreed with you and Pelosi until the nature of this particular problem came along. If you believe that he was willing to break the law to get dirt on his political opponent to win the 2020 election and that may well be true, how can you sit around and wonder what else he will go to win the 2020 election? What other schemes is he cooking up? Then you have to ask how good will the results actually be in 2020, if his behavior over a year as been about compromising them

Remember what really made Tricky Dick Nixon subject to impeachment, had to do with planting bugs in the Watergate hotel, to listen in his political opponent McGovern prior to 1972 election and then paying hush money so that the story would not break before the election. Nixon was willing to break the law to win. You cannot expect elections to be the solution, when you turn a blind eye to what these guys are willing to do to, including break laws, to win those elections.

The only problem elections cannot respond to, is the corruption of the election process itself.

 

We should've kept it.

 

There has never been any proof presented that Nixon knew about the Watergate break in and bug planting ahead of time. He was informed after the fact and then acted to cover it up. Most damning ordering the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation into the break in.

 

Don't molest US foreign officers and property. Problem solved.

 

Nixon was in an extemely caustic environment created by democrats a decade earlier. I have long since forgiven him.

 

Democrats are opportunists, cheats and liars, and a lot of evil stuff that has happened over the years has been by their hands. Republicans would do themselves a big favor if they would just hammer the truth of this democrat degeneracy.
.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms

 

Indeed. What people continually ignore is that the Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy in 1979 was a black letter ACT OF WAR!!!

The way I see it the money of their we impounded was simply a payment to us for not bombing them which we would've been fully justified I doing.

 

then shouldn't that extend to calling Trump supporters "cultists"?

 

Sure, if I ever do you can report me.

 

I will. Thanks for underscoring the utility of this useful partisan ie liberal tool.

 

The rule applies to all sides of the political spectrum and could only be partisan if enforced in a partisan way.
BTW I have not reported your infraction and am merely informing you of the forum rules.

 

Okay. Thank you.

 

Correct. There was definitely evidence that he authorized the payment of the hush money. That was clear on the WH tapes and that was a clear violation of the law. The was an effort to silence witnesses and obstruct justice

 

That's why we passed RICO laws.

 

in context it does.... this is, after all the president of the United States saying that she is incompetent and makes every place she goes WORSE.... How is someone supposed to feel about that? How are other people supposed to feel about her? How are other potential witnesses supposed to think about the prospect of testifying

the same thing happened to the other guy
Fox Business Host Calls Trump 'Big Dumb Baby' For Attacking Yovanovitch
when a fox personality calls a republican president a big dumb baby....he probably is not implementing
A smart strategy. And again, I point out that trumps vicious attacks on a well respected public servant should have the impact of discouraging the testimony of current witnesses and potential witnesses.... which is witness tampering

again I point out.... this is not a criminal trial. The issue is whether trumps behavior is proper. And the standard is not one of incontrovertible proof

 

YES.
The issue WAS not the sexual affair with a porn star before he was president. The issue, as you correctly point out was the cover up and suppression on witnesses
Just as with Clinton... what he did with Lewinsky was not illegal. But lying about it was.

 

President Clinton lied during a civil deposition about a material fact in a tort claim case, based on conduct predating his presidency. This was not about a criminal matter, and it had nothing to do with formulating a plan to impact his election or re-election chances, and it did not involve any agencies or third party criminal conduct, but the lie represented perjury.

 

Is that why you avoid the threads that detail the evidence against Trump?

Is that why you avoid what Trump actually does and says?

 

Every time I go to a thread regarding "evidence" against Trump I find one or both of the following:

1) The "evidence" is from sources longstanding opposition to President Trump which means they are not credible.
2) The "evidence" is a healthy dose of opinion, speculation and coincidence. Which of course is not evidence.

 

That's fine since you say that it is your belief and not a fact. Do you also think we should impeach a president because of beliefs?

 

More and more Trump fans are beginning to feel that way. They avoid the threads that detail the evidence against Trump, and they concentrate on issues having nothing to do with his impeachment.

Others avoid reality and use name calling, personal attacks, and false accusations against Schiff and other Democrats, but they will not deal with the evidence other than saying there isn't any. As if saying that makes it true. That is a common tactic with Trump and his fans.

 

My post was directed at someone else.

Falsely characterizing the evidence is not dealing with the evidence.

 

363

I've repeatedly stated President Trump should not be impeached.