Impeachment

[JJ Slim]

You don't let extortion slide for an entire term. That's what these impeachment rules are for and that's why they're being exercised.

Once again agreed fully. And if they weren't trying to impeach him from day one before he had a chance to do anything wrong I could see spending the time to investigate it's merits.

So, apparently you agree that it was a "perfect" phone call?

I don't know if I would use the term "perfect" but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Pretty blase as far as conversations between heads of states go.

[jonh]

You think I wish that the President of the United States of America bribed another country for personal gain by sacrificing Ukraine's fighting a war? That is the last thing I wish for as a US citizen.

Not necessarily. What I do know is that there has been talk of impeaching President Trump since before he even was sworn into office. "Impeach 45!" "We're going to impeach that MFer!". Russian Collusion! Stormy Daniels! Obstruction of justice! Campaign finance violation! Emoluments clause! If it was just this I could maybe take it a bit more seriously. But there has been a non-stop attempt to find a crime to impeach him. Sorry but this is just weak and honestly it is embarrassing. On the other hand it is great entertainment.

I understand not liking him or his policies. Trust me he does things sometimes that make me cringe. But that is what the ballot box is for.

Are you saying that violation of campaign finance laws, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause are not worth congress holding a president accountable to?

Not at all. If they are true then absolutely. I'm saying that this President has been investigated more than any other in history with very little basis and nothing has been found over and over again.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria (Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief)

I don't see the connection between the fact that the president being under investigation throuoghout his presidency and the veracity of the Ukrainian claims. It seems like a red herring. Its possible that I have missed something crucial, but from what I have gleaned, there are multiple accounts that have testified that is what has taken place. If thats what has occurred, then the questino is whether you are ok with having a president witholding aid from a different country unless they assist him get dirt on a political opponant. This seems pretty clear (to me).

I am genuinely curious--What would be your rational for why this would be ok? Is it based in needing more evidence than has been presented? If so, when would it be "enough". Do you not feel the act is a big deal?

[JJ Slim]

You think I wish that the President of the United States of America bribed another country for personal gain by sacrificing Ukraine's fighting a war? That is the last thing I wish for as a US citizen.

Not necessarily. What I do know is that there has been talk of impeaching President Trump since before he even was sworn into office. "Impeach 45!" "We're going to impeach that MFer!". Russian Collusion! Stormy Daniels! Obstruction of justice! Campaign finance violation! Emoluments clause! If it was just this I could maybe take it a bit more seriously. But there has been a non-stop attempt to find a crime to impeach him. Sorry but this is just weak and honestly it is embarrassing. On the other hand it is great entertainment.

I understand not liking him or his policies. Trust me he does things sometimes that make me cringe. But that is what the ballot box is for.

Are you saying that violation of campaign finance laws, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause are not worth congress holding a president accountable to?

Not at all. If they are true then absolutely. I'm saying that this President has been investigated more than any other in history with very little basis and nothing has been found over and over again.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria (Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief)

I don't see the connection between the fact that the president being under investigation throuoghout his presidency and the veracity of the Ukrainian claims. It seems like a red herring. Its possible that I have missed something crucial, but from what I have gleaned, there are multiple accounts that have testified that is what has taken place. If thats what has occurred, then the questino is whether you are ok with having a president witholding aid from a different country unless they assist him get dirt on a political opponant. This seems pretty clear (to me).

I am genuinely curious--What would be your rational for why this would be ok? Is it based in needing more evidence than has been presented? If so, when would it be "enough". Do you not feel the act is a big deal?

As far as getting them to get dirt on a political opponent that is an opinion, not a fact. Yes Joe Biden is running for his party's nomination but he is not the party's pick yet. I honestly believe (my opinion) that Trump would prefer to run against Biden than the others. I any case the allegations against Biden are not new by any means. I've known about the issues with his son's involvement in both Ukraine and China for at least two years. Ukraine finally got a government that might be able to look into it.

As I said "If it were true and provable" I would be firmly against it. All I have heard are tons of opinions, innuendo and sad stories but no facts.

I watched all of both days of testimony and then switched over to CNN, Fox and MSNBC. It is funny on the coverage. CNN and MSNBC only showed clips of Democrats asking questions and getting gotcha answers while Fox only showed clips of Republicans asking their gotcha questions. It would be so nice to have a non-partisan news that would just give you the facts without having a bias and let you make your own decisions on it's merits.

[jonh]

I am confused, and I have admittedly not spent a ton of time digging through the case. From what I can tell, Bill taylor, Tim Morrison, Fiona hill, Sondland, and mick Mulvaney have all acknowledged “quid pro quo” took place (to some degree), right? I also believe there are even some trump tweets implying that it happened.

What does it take for charges to become “true and provable”?

I totally agree on wanting unbiased media coverage- the polarization is disgusting. I would love and pay money for a news channel that actively attempts to provide nuanced perspectives from both sides in a way that does not feel gimmicky or setting up straw men.

[Flagrant Fowl]

Watch C-SPAN.

[carey]

Not necessarily. What I do know is that there has been talk of impeaching President Trump since before he even was sworn into office. "Impeach 45!" "We're going to impeach that MFer!". Russian Collusion! Stormy Daniels! Obstruction of justice! Campaign finance violation! Emoluments clause! If it was just this I could maybe take it a bit more seriously. But there has been a non-stop attempt to find a crime to impeach him. Sorry but this is just weak and honestly it is embarrassing. On the other hand it is great entertainment.

I understand not liking him or his policies. Trust me he does things sometimes that make me cringe. But that is what the ballot box is for.

Are you saying that violation of campaign finance laws, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause are not worth congress holding a president accountable to?

Not at all. If they are true then absolutely. I'm saying that this President has been investigated more than any other in history with very little basis and nothing has been found over and over again.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria (Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief)

I don't see the connection between the fact that the president being under investigation throuoghout his presidency and the veracity of the Ukrainian claims. It seems like a red herring. Its possible that I have missed something crucial, but from what I have gleaned, there are multiple accounts that have testified that is what has taken place. If thats what has occurred, then the questino is whether you are ok with having a president witholding aid from a different country unless they assist him get dirt on a political opponant. This seems pretty clear (to me).

I am genuinely curious--What would be your rational for why this would be ok? Is it based in needing more evidence than has been presented? If so, when would it be "enough". Do you not feel the act is a big deal?

As far as getting them to get dirt on a political opponent that is an opinion, not a fact. Yes Joe Biden is running for his party's nomination but he is not the party's pick yet. I honestly believe (my opinion) that Trump would prefer to run against Biden than the others. I any case the allegations against Biden are not new by any means. I've known about the issues with his son's involvement in both Ukraine and China for at least two years. Ukraine finally got a government that might be able to look into it.

As I said "If it were true and provable" I would be firmly against it. All I have heard are tons of opinions, innuendo and sad stories but no facts.

I watched all of both days of testimony and then switched over to CNN, Fox and MSNBC. It is funny on the coverage. CNN and MSNBC only showed clips of Democrats asking questions and getting gotcha answers while Fox only showed clips of Republicans asking their gotcha questions. It would be so nice to have a non-partisan news that would just give you the facts without having a bias and let you make your own decisions on it's merits.

I don't think you know what opinions and facts are.

[Nodack]

I watched MSNBC the first day. They showed the entire hearing from start to finish. Nothing was edited in or out. I saw all the Dems and Republicans grilling the witnesses. Yes, after the hearing both sides went to their best gotcha moments and showed them.

There isn’t a shred of doubt in my mind that Trump did in fact do the crime. They have over a dozen witnesses that paint a pretty clear picture. The main characters in this have refused or have been blocked by Trump from testifying, which to me is another sign of guilt. There is a lot of evidence such as text messages, emails, transcripts and official documents that have been filed which could shed even more light on this but the State Department has blocked any of it from being used, which to me is another sign of guilt.

I watched the Republicans grill the witnesses. I didn’t see any of them question anything the witnesses claimed about Trump. Instead they talked about Hunter Biden, how much more Trump gave the Ukraine than Obama and never really asked them anything pertaining to Trump at all. It was all show for their viewers. The Dems and the Cons both tried to bait the witnesses into saying more but, the witnesses were all business and would only talk facts, which was nice to see.

Trump attacking the witnesses only makes him look worse. The female ambassador saying she felt intimidated by Trumps attacks and then being informed that Trump just Twitter attacked her while she was testifying made the point of witnesses intimidation even more.

I don't see how anyone can look at all the facts in this case and claim Trump never tried to extort the Ukraine. Trump admitted it. Mulvaney admitted it. Text messages show it. Emails show it. A dozen witnesses claim it. Rudy and his two Ukraine henchmen prove it. Bolton calling it a drug deal shows it. All the main characters refusing to testify certainly don’t scream out innocence. All the evidence being blocked from being seen doesn’t scream out innocence. Republicans don’t seem to see any evidence whatsoever in this case and yet, without a shred of evidence claim Biden and his son are guilty.

[Mori Chu]

The effort by the GOP to paint anybody who testifies against the President as "never Trumpers" or "Democrat operatives" is pretty ridiculous.

[JJ Slim]

Are you saying that violation of campaign finance laws, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause are not worth congress holding a president accountable to?

Not at all. If they are true then absolutely. I'm saying that this President has been investigated more than any other in history with very little basis and nothing has been found over and over again.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” - Lavrentiy Beria (Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief)

I don't see the connection between the fact that the president being under investigation throuoghout his presidency and the veracity of the Ukrainian claims. It seems like a red herring. Its possible that I have missed something crucial, but from what I have gleaned, there are multiple accounts that have testified that is what has taken place. If thats what has occurred, then the questino is whether you are ok with having a president witholding aid from a different country unless they assist him get dirt on a political opponant. This seems pretty clear (to me).

I am genuinely curious--What would be your rational for why this would be ok? Is it based in needing more evidence than has been presented? If so, when would it be "enough". Do you not feel the act is a big deal?

As far as getting them to get dirt on a political opponent that is an opinion, not a fact. Yes Joe Biden is running for his party's nomination but he is not the party's pick yet. I honestly believe (my opinion) that Trump would prefer to run against Biden than the others. I any case the allegations against Biden are not new by any means. I've known about the issues with his son's involvement in both Ukraine and China for at least two years. Ukraine finally got a government that might be able to look into it.

As I said "If it were true and provable" I would be firmly against it. All I have heard are tons of opinions, innuendo and sad stories but no facts.

I watched all of both days of testimony and then switched over to CNN, Fox and MSNBC. It is funny on the coverage. CNN and MSNBC only showed clips of Democrats asking questions and getting gotcha answers while Fox only showed clips of Republicans asking their gotcha questions. It would be so nice to have a non-partisan news that would just give you the facts without having a bias and let you make your own decisions on it's merits.

I don't think you know what opinions and facts are.

That's your opinion...

[JJ Slim]

I watched MSNBC the first day. They showed the entire hearing from start to finish. Nothing was edited in or out. I saw all the Dems and Republicans grilling the witnesses. Yes, after the hearing both sides went to their best gotcha moments and showed them.

There isn’t a shred of doubt in my mind that Trump did in fact do the crime. They have over a dozen witnesses that paint a pretty clear picture. The main characters in this have refused or have been blocked by Trump from testifying, which to me is another sign of guilt. There is a lot of evidence such as text messages, emails, transcripts and official documents that have been filed which could shed even more light on this but the State Department has blocked any of it from being used, which to me is another sign of guilt.

I watched the Republicans grill the witnesses. I didn’t see any of them question anything the witnesses claimed about Trump. Instead they talked about Hunter Biden, how much more Trump gave the Ukraine than Obama and never really asked them anything pertaining to Trump at all. It was all show for their viewers. The Dems and the Cons both tried to bait the witnesses into saying more but, the witnesses were all business and would only talk facts, which was nice to see.

Trump attacking the witnesses only makes him look worse. The female ambassador saying she felt intimidated by Trumps attacks and then being informed that Trump just Twitter attacked her while she was testifying made the point of witnesses intimidation even more.

I don't see how anyone can look at all the facts in this case and claim Trump never tried to extort the Ukraine. Trump admitted it. Mulvaney admitted it. Text messages show it. Emails show it. A dozen witnesses claim it. Rudy and his two Ukraine henchmen prove it. Bolton calling it a drug deal shows it. All the main characters refusing to testify certainly don’t scream out innocence. All the evidence being blocked from being seen doesn’t scream out innocence. Republicans don’t seem to see any evidence whatsoever in this case and yet, without a shred of evidence claim Biden and his son are guilty.

In regards to not providing documents and refusing or blocking witnesses, I agree one way to look at it is that he is guilty and he he is hiding something. But another way to look at it is that he played along with the Russia/Mueller thing for over two years, providing over a million documents, every witness and everything else he was asked for. The only thing he didn't give them was an in-person interview. Maybe he feels he humored them once but he has more important things to do like run the country. Do you consider that that might be a possibility?

The way the mainstream media and Democrats treat President Trump reminds me of my first wife (not MEE, she was my 2nd). No matter what I did, even if it was intended to be nice, she would take the worst possible way to look at things and that was the absolute fact of the matter. No matter what I said or how I tried my best to explain, I was in the wrong. It got so bad I actually started questioning if I was really a bad person or an a**hole. Fortunately I only wasted a couple years of my life with her. So my point is that if the MSM and Dems would talk about the good things he has done occasionally (of which there are a bunch but you never hear about them) instead of constantly attacking absolutely everything as bad they might be taken a bit more seriously. As it is now any attack against him is simply dismissed by his supporters as another bogus attack with no validity.

[Nodack]

I think Trump declared war on the media and they have reciprocated.

Dems and Cons are always at war. It just is. Obama was President for 8 years and FOX didn’t find a single nice thing to say about him in all that time. He didn’t care. He didn’t need defending. He had one wife, no bankruptcies, no sexual assault accusations. He was boring. I see the differences in the two media sides. On MSNBC and CNN Trump is in deep trouble. On FOX he’s totally innocent and all the witnesses are paid assassin's that hate America.

[Mori Chu]

Trump/GOP attacks on Lt. Col. Vindman and others risk their safety. Vindman may need to be relocated due to safety concerns and threats:



Vindman rejects the conspiracy theory floated by GOP that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election:



Did Trump demand that Ukraine's president announce investigations into the Bidens, in exchange for aid and favors? Vindman: "Yes." VP Pence advisor Williams: "Yes."



Vindman: "I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent."



Vindman further on asking foreign countries to meddle in US politics for the President's benefit:

[Mori Chu]

We have transcripts/summaries of the relevant calls and first-hand testimony from people who heard it. But Nunes and the GOP keep demanding the unveiling of the identity of the whistleblower, which is irrelevant, will only put the man in grave danger, and will scare future folks from coming forward.

[Nodack]

Sondland is testifying. His name was right in the middle of everything and he was half expected to take the fifth. That did not happen. He spilled his guts and threw everybody under the bus. He implicated everybody from Trump down as being part of the scheme. This is very damaging to Trump. Trump has already Tweeted that he barely knows Sondland. Sondland was the rich guy who gave Trump $2,000,000 towards his election and Trump made him an Ambassador as his reward.

Republicans are questioning Sondland with their talking points such as a conversation Sondland had with Trump where Sondland asks Trump what do you want with the Ukraine and Trump responds “I want Nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Salinsky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on.”

The thing is the whistleblower had already blew the whistle. Congress was already notified and started an investigation. Trump was already busted. Now he says he wants nothing from the Ukraine and then gives them their money. That is the proof Republicans give that Trump was innocent. Fail

[Mori Chu]

Sondland's testimony is quite damning. Sondland was there with first-hand knowledge of the Ukraine affair. He testified that it was clear to all parties involved that there was a demand for a quid pro quo and that this came from the wishes of the President himself.

[Nodack]

And he claims there is plenty of documentation backing that up, which is being blocked.

[Indy]

As well as other witnesses that the president is blocking from testifying.

[Nodack]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ony-071708

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland — a close Trump ally and longtime GOP donor — said in his opening remarks to the House Intelligence Committee. “The answer is yes.”

“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” said the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, adding that he directly communicated the “quid pro quo” to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sondland claimed that senior officials including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement — and that it was carried out at the “express direction” of the president. Sondland specifically cited a July 19 email copied to Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, Sondland reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”

In his opening statement, Sondland injected a new wrinkle into the quid pro quo claim: that Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky itself was the product of a quid pro quo for investigations. On that day, Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for a Biden investigation during the phone call, which has become the central focus of the impeachment inquiry.

[Nodack]

You know what gives me hope? When I see an article like this one on Fox News

Sondland declares quid pro quo, pundits call testimony damaging to Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/media/sondland- ... g-to-trump

[Nodack]

Just when you think this can’t get any better.

Nunes was the leading Republican asking questions at the Impeachment hearings. He has been very animated as if he had a personal investment in this trial. Near the end of the last day Swalwell takes over questioning for the Dems and lights into Nunes about some shady dealings going on with him and the Ukraine. I was like, what? I have been trying to figure out what he was talking about ever since and today the story broke.


Giuliani associate willing to inform Congress of meeting between Nunes and former Ukrainian official: report
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4717 ... -nunes-and

An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, is willing to inform Congress about a meeting between the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and a former Ukrainian prosecutor.

Joseph A. Bondy, the attorney for Lev Parnas, told CNN that the Ukrainian official told his client about the meeting with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, in which the GOP lawmaker sought to find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December," Bondy said.


Shokin was dismissed from his post in 2016 after a pressure campaign from Western leaders, including Biden, over concerns that he was taking insufficient action to tackle corruption.

Nunes is one of the White House’s chief allies on Capitol Hill and emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of President Trump during the impeachment hearing, which he dubbed a “circus.”