Democrats set Thursday vote on U.S. House path in Trump impeachment probe

[Jingthing]

History in the making.

Watch it live now:

 

 

[atyclb]

in anticipation i've acquired a popcorn machine to watch trump get impeached and removed from office pursuant to the tvf legal scholars comments. (i am a non legal scholar)

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, atyclb said:

in anticipation i've acquired a popcorn machine to watch trump get impeached and removed from office pursuant to the tvf legal scholars comments. (i am a non legal scholar)

Get yourself some really optically dense glasses while you are it....... and if you have a spare moment a new username (register it early to try and avoid being detected when you come back in your new form).

[JAG]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:51 AM, riclag said:

To the intolerant socialist dems,  thanks for the memories you have in 2 years laid  ground work to destroy what other oppositions countries have tried to do for hundreds of years,destroy America!

If impeaching the lying, cheating, ludicrous fellow currently occupying the office of President (which remarkably he managed to win without winning the popular support -vote- of a majority of those who voted) will destroy America, then America must be so decayed (I don't think it is) that it would probably not be possible to save it.

[atyclb]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

and if you have a spare moment a new username (register it early to try and avoid being detected when you come back in your new form).

 

i have no need or desire to get a new username or secondary usernames as i do not need to garner any more positive reactions to my posts then those that naturally occur. ofcourse i duly accept negative reactions also.

 

in short i have zero interest in meddling reactions or crossposts on internet forums.

[bristolboy]

Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine

 

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.

But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

 

From "he didn't do it" to "so what if he did?"

[khaowong1]

On 11/1/2019 at 6:24 AM, JAG said:

If impeaching the lying, cheating, ludicrous fellow currently occupying the office of President (which remarkably he managed to win without winning the popular support -vote- of a majority of those who voted) will destroy America, then America must be so decayed (I don't think it is) that it would probably not be possible to save it.

Do you even have any idea how bad our country would be if Hillary had won the Presidency?  I'm pretty sure she got all those votes from illegals and dead people.  

[Crazy Alex]

Wow, that really fizzled out. Now we find out the "whistleblower" is nothing more than a disgruntled leaker, Democrat operative and likely a Brennan CIA plant as well. I can see why the Democrats tried to revive this nonsense with the military guy with lots of fruit salad. What a shame he chose to throw away his credibility and reputation on such a silly partisan witch hunt. 

[khaowong1]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, that really fizzled out. Now we find out the "whistleblower" is nothing more than a disgruntled leaker, Democrat operative and likely a Brennan CIA plant as well. I can see why the Democrats tried to revive this nonsense with the military guy with lots of fruit salad. What a shame he chose to throw away his credibility and reputation on such a silly partisan witch hunt. 

Amen brother.  He even looks like a <deleted>.  

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, that really fizzled out. Now we find out the "whistleblower" is nothing more than a disgruntled leaker, Democrat operative and likely a Brennan CIA plant as well. I can see why the Democrats tried to revive this nonsense with the military guy with lots of fruit salad. What a shame he chose to throw away his credibility and reputation on such a silly partisan witch hunt. 

It's even more of a shame that the investigations have largely backed him up.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, khaowong1 said:

Rational people don't vote Democrat.  And your full of <deleted>.. There was no economic expansion until The Donald came along.  And Obama had no intention of defeating ISIS.  Those were his Bro's.  And Trump doesn't need any help getting re-elected.  Stand by.  

That is so absurd, and contrary to historical fact, that I don't know if you are using satire or you actually believe the nonsense you post.

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, that really fizzled out. Now we find out the "whistleblower" is nothing more than a disgruntled leaker, Democrat operative and likely a Brennan CIA plant as well. I can see why the Democrats tried to revive this nonsense with the military guy with lots of fruit salad. What a shame he chose to throw away his credibility and reputation on such a silly partisan witch hunt. 

Another poster in denial of reality.

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Another poster in denial of reality.

Really? What part is untrue? 

 

Hey I got a question? Whats the high crime or misdemeanor we are talking here and whats the factual basis for same? I assume there is some competant evidence too? 

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, khaowong1 said:

And Trump doesn't need any help getting re-elected. 

So that must be why he is muscling the states to cancel their GOP primaries.

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/09/11/some-states-will-cancel-republican-primaries-to-smooth-trumps-nomination-not-n-h/

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/two-sc-republicans-sue-state-gop-canceled-2020-primary/

 

Curious how the witch hunt-no collusion-no quid pro quo-perfect phone call-fake news media hasn't given this much coverage.

Oh wait, he lost the popular vote last time, no need for him to win it this time either.

 

And he has every intention of pulling the same stunts with his Russian pals as last time

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/trump-welcomes-foreign-interference-2020-campaign/591589/

https://www.minnpost.com/foreign-concept/2019/10/foreign-interference-is-coming-in-the-2020-election-whether-trump-asks-for-it-or-not/

 

If he isn't removed from office before the election may as well cancel it, his reptile army will take it from there.  Next stop: repeal 22nd Amendment.

There must be some consideration for dealing with this within The Pentagon.  Not long ago I heard a Big Brass on US tv briefly mention something about this.

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, that really fizzled out. Now we find out the "whistleblower" is nothing more than a disgruntled leaker, Democrat operative and likely a Brennan CIA plant as well. I can see why the Democrats tried to revive this nonsense with the military guy with lots of fruit salad. What a shame he chose to throw away his credibility and reputation on such a silly partisan witch hunt. 

 

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Really? What part is untrue? 

 

Hey I got a question? Whats the high crime or misdemeanor we are talking here and whats the factual basis for same? I assume there is some competant evidence too? 

Pretty much all of it.  The investigation has not fizzled, the whistleblower has not been identified, and LtCol Vindham has not damaged his credibility or reputation.

 

A high crime or misdemeanor?  How about holding up $400 million of congressionally approved military aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order to pressure President Zelensky into opening investigations on a Trump political opponent and a totally discredited conspiracy theory?  You know, seeking foreign aid in an election and throwing a bone to Trump's buddy Vlad by muddying the waters regarding Russia's election interference.

 

Funny, without evidence Trump accused President Obama of tapping his phones and interfering with "our very sacred election process".  Now we learn Trump is willing to accept illegal foreign assistance in his re-election attempt and even willing to resort to blackmail to obtain it.

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

How about holding up $400 million of congressionally approved military aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order to pressure President Zelensky into opening investigations on a Trump political opponent and a totally discredited conspiracy theory

Gee that sounds horrible. There must be all sorts of proof of that.wonder what the Ukrainian president has to say he's probably the best witness. how do they know what was said, is there a transcript of a telephone call with all of that? There must be some direct proof of a quid pro quo right. What statue did he violate.

 

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Pretty much all of it.  The investigation has not fizzled, the whistleblower has not been identified, and LtCol Vindham has not damaged his credibility or reputation.

 

A high crime or misdemeanor?  How about holding up $400 million of congressionally approved military aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order to pressure President Zelensky into opening investigations on a Trump political opponent and a totally discredited conspiracy theory?  You know, seeking foreign aid in an election and throwing a bone to Trump's buddy Vlad by muddying the waters regarding Russia's election interference.

 

Funny, without evidence Trump accused President Obama of tapping his phones and interfering with "our very sacred election process".  Now we learn Trump is willing to accept illegal foreign assistance in his re-election attempt and even willing to resort to blackmail to obtain it.

Do you have any evidence Ukraine even knew the aid was being held up?

 

As for spying, Bill Barr says Trump was spied on.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html

 

I'm willing to bet Trump and Barr know things that have happened that you and I don't. In fact, how can you even make the assertion Trump accused Obama of spying on him with no evidence, essentially claiming you know Trump didn't know something? That does not hold up to basic logical thinking.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Gee that sounds horrible. There must be all sorts of proof of that.wonder what the Ukrainian president has to say he's probably the best witness. how do they know what was said, is there a transcript of a telephone call with all of that? There must be some direct proof of a quid pro quo right. What statue did he violate.

 

 

 

Don't worry, there is a summary of the phone call and statements from reliable witnesses taken under oath that support it.  Even John Bolton recognized that what Trump was asking was way over the line.  The administration is really into crazy town when John Bolton becomes the voice of reason and restraint.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Do you have any evidence Ukraine even knew the aid was being held up?

 

As for spying, Bill Barr says Trump was spied on.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politics/barr-doj-investiation-fbi-russia/index.html

 

I'm willing to bet Trump and Barr know things that have happened that you and I don't. In fact, how can you even make the assertion Trump accused Obama of spying on him with no evidence, essentially claiming you know Trump didn't know something? That does not hold up to basic logical thinking.

Yes, there is evidence Ukraine knew the aid was held up.  Though that doesn't really matter, it was the President's intent that matters, not Ukraine's interpretation of events.   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

This is old news that has been posted in the forum repeatedly.  Asking for the same evidence over and over is troll behavior.

 

Cover-up General Barr did not say spying did occur.  He said:

 

' "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," Barr said, echoing some of the more inflammatory claims lobbed by the President for months, but declining to elaborate on his concerns. "I think spying did occur." '

"He did not provide evidence for his claims."

 

Barr still has not provided evidence.

 

Trump also has not provided evidence to support his spying claim, and Trump is a man with no control of his mouth.  If he had evidence he would have blurted it out long ago.

[Crazy Alex]

 

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, there is evidence Ukraine knew the aid was held up.  Though that doesn't really matter, it was the President's intent that matters, not Ukraine's interpretation of events.   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

This is old news that has been posted in the forum repeatedly.  Asking for the same evidence over and over is troll behavior.

 

Cover-up General Barr did not say spying did occur.  He said:

 

' "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," Barr said, echoing some of the more inflammatory claims lobbed by the President for months, but declining to elaborate on his concerns. "I think spying did occur." '

"He did not provide evidence for his claims."

 

He still has not provided evidence.

So, the NYT babbles about some documents, doesn't even say what they are or what they entail. FAIL.

 

So you claim this information has been posted repeatedly? That's the first time I've seen it. FAIL.

 

You now concede it's not a matter of Trump not having evidence, but a matter of him not providing evidence. That's precisely the point. I'm glad I was able to leave you to an accurate statement about it.

 

PS: Your personal attack is noted and of course it means you know you're losing the argument. There is no other reason to engage in such tactics.

 

Have a nice evening.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

 

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

[Nyezhov]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Don't worry, there is a summary of the phone call and statements from reliable witnesses taken under oath that support it.  Even John Bolton recognized that what Trump was asking was way over the line.  The administration is really into crazy town when John Bolton becomes the voice of reason and restraint.

Summary? Dont they have the transcript? What about the Uk Pres he is up in arms about this vicious attempt to extort his country, right? So what statute has been violated? Lets get the ball rolling and stop crime!

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

So, the NYT babbles about some documents, doesn't even say what they are or what they entail. FAIL.

 

So you claim this information has been posted repeatedly? That's the first time I've seen it. FAIL.

 

You now concede it's not a matter of Trump not having evidence, but a matter of him not providing evidence. That's precisely the point. I'm glad I was able to leave you to an accurate statement about it.

 

PS: Your personal attack is noted and of course it means you know you're losing the argument. There is no other reason to engage in such tactics.

 

Have a nice evening.

You will use Russia Today as a source but not believe the New York Times.  Fail.

 

The information has been posted repeatedly.  If you don't bother to stay informed, that's your Fail.

 

Claims from over two years ago that were never supported with evidence and are no longer being made may be assumed to be false.  Especially when the claims come from the leaker-in-chief Trump; if he had evidence he would have provided it.  Besides, if you accuse someone of spying, it is up to you to provide proof.

 

If you are too sensitive to handle having your posts challenged, you shouldn't post.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Summary? Dont they have the transcript? What about the Uk Pres he is up in arms about this vicious attempt to extort his country, right? So what statute has been violated? Lets get the ball rolling and stop crime!

What has been described as a transcript is not a true transcript.  There is probably a recording of the phone call, but the White House doesn't want to admit or release it. 

 

People being blackmailed often won't admit it, especially if the future of their country is at stake.  Besides, as noted, it is the President's intent that matters, and all who took part in this crime understood his intent to be blackmail.

 

Once again, soliciting foreign assistance in an election is illegal.  People who insist that this be repeated over and over are trolling.

 

The ball is rolling.  Trump will be impeached.  The Senate may not convict, but history will not be kind to those Senators who put their re-election above their duty to hold the President accountable.

[Nyezhov]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What has been described as a transcript is not a true transcript.

Any competant evidence of that? How do you know, if all the testimony has been in secret?

 

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

People being blackmailed often won't admit it, especially if the future of their country is at stake.

Is that a spin way of saying that...There is no victim? The alleged victim of this scheme denies it occured? Then you have no crime to even take it further.

 

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

it is the President's intent that matters, and all who took part in this crime understood his intent to be blackmail.

From what facts do you infer his intent? Is the Presdient of the USA entitled to ask other countries to do us favours? Have other Presidents asked for quid pro quo? Is a quid pro quo in foreign affairs unlawful per se? Others took part in this "crime"? Who?

 

35 minutes ago, heybruce said:

soliciting foreign assistance in an election is illegal.

Isnt that a question of intent? How do you prove that?

 

Im truly interested in all this, because I cant understand how oestensibly intelligent human beings keep screaming that impeachment is warranted where they cant even show what high crime or misd was involved and when they dont even ask themselves the basic questions as set forth here.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Any competant evidence of that? How do you know, if all the testimony has been in secret?

 

From what facts do you infer his intent? Is the Presdient of the USA entitled to ask other countries to do us favours? 

Because a short summary of the call was released to the public. By trump.

 

no the president cannot ask for favors from a foreign govt to investigate a political rival.

[Nyezhov]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Because a short summary of the call was released to the public. By trump.

I dont understand what point, if any, you are trying to make with that statement.

 

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

no the president cannot ask for favors from a foreign govt to investigate a political rival.

Got it. So if I, ordinary man, allegedly commit a crime under the jusrisdiction of the USA in a foreign nation, then all I have to do to stop a prosecution or investigation is run for President?

 

Cool, I announce my candidacy. Im immune.

 

Do you guys even realize how crazy all your impeachment sounds to the non obsessed?

[J Town]

12 hours ago, heybruce said:

Another poster in denial of reality.

I stopped trying with that one. If Trump supporters were interested in truth, then they wouldn't be Trump supporters.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Got it. So if I, ordinary man, allegedly commit a crime under the jusrisdiction of the USA in a foreign nation, then all I have to do to stop a prosecution or investigation is run for President?

No you don't get it. There is a legal procedure for that. There is even a treaty with Ukraine on mutual assistance, with precise articles.

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

 

How do you explain that Trump used a crooked way instead of the legal way?