Will House Dems impeach Trump?

[This_person]

"Something" = phony investigation into Biden

What makes it phony? How is that a gain for Trump individually? What is the proof that Trump's motive was not simply justice for the country?

"Threat"= we will not give you the aid you are entitled to.

What is the proof that the aid was tied to the investigation? The highest ranking official specifically said that it was only his presumption the two were tied together, so where is the proof that those things were tied together?

Really shot yourself in the foot with that one, but thanks for laying it out pretty succinctly.

Quite the opposite. When you have to actually explain yourself, the flaws come shining through like a million points of light - laser beam lights.

You assume the investigation was phony - a position easily refuted by Biden himself. You assume a threat that even the person you claim was threatened has no knowledge of such threat.

You repeatedly said that we need an inquiry to find out what Trump's crimes were. While you were repeatedly reminded that our system of justice does not work that way, what the inquiry found out is that a bunch of folks who work for Trump disagreed with Trump's policies and actions, presumed that his policies and actions were not good, and told other people that they felt that way. That's the entirety of the several days of hearings/inquiry.

So, you laid out extortion and failed on each and every point.

What power was abused, how, and what is your proof?

 

[This_person]

The charges have yet to be drafted their is no reason to think he can't be found guilty of both.

You drafted them. You said, and I quote, "The criminal acts are extortion, bribery, abuse of powers and obstruction of justice."

I asked you to explain extortion, and you failed miserably. I asked above for the abuse of powers, but now I'll ask for bribery.

Odds are exceptionally high - I'd say as high as Trump getting re-elected - you'll fail on both of those, too.

 

[Stjohns3269]

So you are saying Hunter Biden was not appointed to the Ukrainian Gas company?

And you are saying there is a quote you can show us where Trump stated he wouldn't give aid unless they gave him something?

Please provide the evidence of those positions because ALL avaialble evidence contradicts your little fantasy.

... And the only extortive threat on record is Joe Bidens when he went after the prosecutor investigating the gas company and his son.

I'll wait.

I've already said his position was inappropriate ( he was profiting from his name and had no experience) but no more so than Trumps Son in law and Daughter in law working in the White House. Trump is really not in a position to criticize nepotism.
Hunter
The prosecutor was investigating Burisma for a period of time before Biden was even there so it doesnt even make sense that Joe biden would pressure to get the guy fired since his son wasn't in any danger. He wanted him gone for being corrupt a charge numerous other intelligence officials also held

It's yet another conspiracy theory designed to confuse people who don't bother to read more than headlines or listen to whoever is screaming loudest on FOX that day.

Please refer to Vindman and Sondland's testimony for the rest of your questions.

 

[PsyOps]

Didn't you just say to leave it up to the "courts" to decide?

Yes I did, about subpoenas of information from the Trump admin. That has nothing to do with whether Trump is guilty of anything you're accusing him of.

 

[Stjohns3269]

You drafted them. You said, and I quote, "The criminal acts are extortion, bribery, abuse of powers and obstruction of justice."

I asked you to explain extortion, and you failed miserably. I asked above for the abuse of powers, but now I'll ask for bribery.

Odds are exceptionally high - I'd say as high as Trump getting re-elected - you'll fail on both of those, too.

Let's just pin this post until after the election if Trump makes it that long.

Using your definition i showed you exactly how Trumps actions fit extortion.

You can see my other reply as to why Burisma and Biden is easily debunked by even the most cursory or goole searches.

Just like, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Benghazi , Obamas Birth certificate or any of the other dozen idiotic things Trump and the RNC have thrown out there to attempt damage their opponents because they know Trump has no actual qualifications or skills to run on so they prey on low information voters to be scared of Boogeymen like Clinton or Grabbing your guns or some other nonsense.

 

[Kyle]

I've already said his position was inappropriate ( he was profiting from his name and had no experience) so let me deflect this to make it about Trump instead...

The prosecutor was investigating Burisma for a period of time before Biden was even there and everybody knows Democarat corruption is just hunky dory cause law only applies to little people and non_Democrats.

now your just gonna have to except OUR conspiracy theory designed to confuse people who don't bother to read more than headlines or listen to whoever is screaming loudest on MSNBC and CNN.

Please refer to Vindman and Sondland's testimony, which was nothing but supposition, conjecture and innuendo for the rest of your questions....

So you can't.... Got it!

 

[Stjohns3269]

Yes I did, about subpoenas of information from the Trump admin. That has nothing to do with whether Trump is guilty of anything you're accusing him of.

What court do you believe is going to rule on that issue and when?

 

[This_person]

I've already said his position was inappropriate ( he was profiting from his name and had no experience)

We agree.

The prosecutor was investigating Burisma for a period of time before Biden was even there so it doesnt even make sense that Joe biden would pressure to get the guy fired since his son wasn't in any danger. He wanted him gone for being corrupt a charge numerous other intelligence officials also held

As I've heard explained, that's what an investigation could find out, if it were held.

Please refer to Vindman and Sondland's testimony for the rest of your questions.

Done. They testified that they had feelings and opinions, presumptions and assumptions. They specifically testified that at no time did the president or anyone else on the planet tell them that the aid was tied to anything, let alone an investigation.

Strong, strong stuff there. Easily believed as true by idiots, but not by thinking people. Which one are you, Sapster?

 

[This_person]

Let's just pin this post until after the election if Trump makes it that long.

I'm just asking you to support your position.

Using your definition i showed you exactly how Trumps actions fit extortion.

Using the definition provided by the dictionary, you showed that Trump personally gained nothing from a threat that never happened (according to the guy you say was threatened).

Your testimony is as helpful to your case as Sondland or Vindman.

You can see my other reply as to why Burisma and Biden is easily debunked by even the most cursory or goole searches.

If you were morally consistent, you'd say that an investigation is warranted to prove your point.

We know Biden made the threat - he bragged about it. The rest is what an investigation is for. That's how they should start - when you know something questionable happened, not when a guy says he heard at the water cooler something bad happened.

 

[Stjohns3269]

We agree.


As I've heard explained, that's what an investigation could find out, if it were held.


Done. They testified that they had feelings and opinions, presumptions and assumptions. They specifically testified that at no time did the president or anyone else on the planet tell them that the aid was tied to anything, let alone an investigation.

Strong, strong stuff there. Easily believed as true by idiots, but not by thinking people. Which one are you, Sapster?

Why would you investigate if the very reason for the investigation doesnt make sense.

A judge would look at the information and say "don't waste the courts time. This is nonsense the timeline doesnt even add up."


Again you can believe FOX news or you can read the actual transcripts of Sondlands statement

I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said. “. . . With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Sondland acknowledged that he and others were the ones pushing Ukrainians to announce investigations, but asserted they had merely “followed the president’s orders,” communicated through Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Sondland testified that top-level officials — including Pence, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — were made aware at various points of what was happening, and he provided emails to back up his assertions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sondland-was-there-a-quid-pro-quo-the-answer-is-yes/2019/11/20/34741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html

 

[Stjohns3269]

I'm just asking you to support your position.

Using the definition provided by the dictionary, you showed that Trump personally gained nothing from a threat that never happened (according to the guy you say was threatened).

Your testimony is as helpful to your case as Sondland or Vindman.

If you were morally consistent, you'd say that an investigation is warranted to prove your point.

We know Biden made the threat - he bragged about it. The rest is what an investigation is for. That's how they should start - when you know something questionable happened, not when a guy says he heard at the water cooler something bad happened.

Trump gained a public announcement of an investigation into Biden. This didnt happen because of the WB. The WH released the aid the day after they became aware of the whistleblower.

Attempted murder is still murder

You gave a definition that fit like a glove around this scenario to prove extortion and now you deny it?
Are you a flat earth antivaxxer too?

 

[PsyOps]

What court do you believe is going to rule on that issue and when?

Well, the DC US District Court ruled that McGahn must testify. But, that will go to the SCOTUS. Who knows where the other suits will end up. I don't even know how many suits are out there. But regardless of decision, all of them will end up at the Supreme Court.

 

[This_person]

Why would you investigate if the very reason for the investigation doesnt make sense.

A judge would look at the information and say "don't waste the courts time. This is nonsense the timeline doesnt even add up."

Yup, that's what we've been saying all along. But, I'm talking about a BIDEN investigation now.

you can read the actual transcripts of Sondlands statement

I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said. “. . . With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Sondland acknowledged that he and others were the ones pushing Ukrainians to announce investigations, but asserted they had merely “followed the president’s orders,” communicated through Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Sondland testified that top-level officials — including Pence, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — were made aware at various points of what was happening, and he provided emails to back up his assertions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sondland-was-there-a-quid-pro-quo-the-answer-is-yes/2019/11/20/34741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html

Keep reading his testimony. Here's some pertinent parts:

Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”​

So, the context of "what there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes" is, "yes, I presumed there was."

 

[This_person]

Trump gained a public announcement of an investigation into Biden.

How is that a gain for Trump personally? And, to make that gain, what did Trump threaten? Please answer with your proof.

 

[stgislander]

We're getting close to 100 posts. At some point you guys gotta realize that StStupidus isn't going to see the light.

 

[vraiblonde]

You gotta admire the commitment they have to just blindly walk into the chipper.

Well, since they stopped teaching history in the schools these kids have to get their information from Big Brother.

 

[GURPS]

Schiff has done a great job of laying out the facts so i don't need to repeat them.

So ya don't have anything as usual .......

Yeah Schiff did such and excellent job support for impeachment has FALLEN from 48% to 41% and continues to fall among independents

While support for Trump among Republicans is near 90%,

IIRC up to 35% among Blacks <---- That should really scare you
Support is up Among Hispanics

Democrats are back pedaling in their support for Impeachment ......

He has done such a good job 71% of the country believe Trump acted inappropriately.

Ooo there is a criminal act .....

 

[Merlin99]

He refuses to release the transcript of the phone call that if it says what he keeps saying it does would show his innocence and end this entire process.

The four who defied the subpoenas are John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, as well as Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry

You're just plain stupid if you think anything he says or does is going to derail their holy mission to get Trump out of office.

 

[nutz]

As we have seen throughout his presidency Trump is capable of screwing up any number of things at the same time.

The charges have yet to be drafted their is no reason to think he can't be found guilty of both.

I do so love when an MPD creates a new MPD, bipolar disorder?

 

[nutz]

Let's just pin this post until after the election if Trump makes it that long.

Using your definition i showed you exactly how Trumps actions fit extortion.

You can see my other reply as to why Burisma and Biden is easily debunked by even the most cursory or goole searches.

Just like, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Benghazi , Obamas Birth certificate or any of the other dozen idiotic things Trump and the RNC have thrown out there to attempt damage their opponents because they know Trump has no actual qualifications or skills to run on so they prey on low information voters to be scared of Boogeymen like Clinton or Grabbing your guns or some other nonsense.

like your MPD will be around that long