U.S. Democrats expected to unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

to you, nothing at all.

 

to independent voters it clearly illustrates how the previous admin set out to ruthlessly 

unseat the man who humiliated their sure win candidate at the polls.

 

they see this fraudulently started surveillance as the first domino that set into motion all the events up until today.

 

now the first domino has fallen....so expect the others to come crashing down as well.

 

as you and your democrat pals in congress like to say....the crime is whatever we say it is.

all that %$#$ will not wash any more.

 

We're now in the area of public opinion and any notions of winning a house vote on impeachment are fast evaporating.

Ok so now you can read the minds of voters.

 

Now how about the facts. What dies the I G report have to do with the impeachment. Did the IG consider it, comment on it in any way.

 

And btw, the IG report does not state what you saying it states.

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts, insulting posts and replies have been removed. 

[jany123]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

The framers instituted a check and balance for the 3 branches of my government. They had it in their wisdom and experience to leave it up to the senate (regardless of the majority seats) to watch over a peoples house who could be bias in their broad interpretation of impeachment! 

If the charges or allegations were indisputable (house GOP) would support their counterparts ! Not one of the GOP are buying the tripe that the dems are spewing so far 

 The framers envisioned a bipartisan government.... their “wisdom and experience” was 18th century monarchical... y’all really need to get over that as it no longer applies and their intent ( bipartisanship) has clearly failed.

[earlinclaifornia]

7 hours ago, pmarlin said:

Waist of time and money.  Congress does nothing while this scam goes on. When it is all over Trump will still be president and will be re-elected.

TRUMP will lose.

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Even Bloomberg's rag admits Trump's future is bright.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-09/don-t-look-now-but-things-are-getting-brighter-for-trump?srnd=premium-africa

 

Sorry haters, impeachment isn't going anywhere.

The Senate will be lost for Republicans.

[earlinclaifornia]

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

"U.S. Democrats expected to unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump"

 

Translation: Pelosi doesn't have the votes.  Those 31 vulnerable Dems aren't going to fire themselves.

That is funny that you somehow think he will not be impeached and the votes are not there. One of us is 'WRONG!

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

to you, nothing at all.

 

to independent voters it clearly illustrates how the previous admin set out to ruthlessly 

unseat the man who humiliated their sure win candidate at the polls.

 

they see this fraudulently started surveillance as the first domino that set into motion all the events up until today.

 

now the first domino has fallen....so expect the others to come crashing down as well.

 

as you and your democrat pals in congress like to say....we don't need a crime to impeach.

all that %$#$ will not wash any more.

 

We're now in the area of public opinion and any notions of winning a house vote on impeachment are fast evaporating.

I am an Independent and read that the report found no political bias. Where is your proof contrary ?

[JHolmesJr]

2 hours ago, phkauf said:

I didn't vote for him the last election, but this whole BullSh!t with the Dems acting like babies the last three years will make me vote for him next year. I despise him as a human being but like his policies and the way he's focusing on America First.

 

Good...he's not here to hold your hand, be a role model for your kids and sing you a lullaby every night...he's here to further America's interests. And help you benefit (hopefully) from his policies. When will the anti trump brigade understand that nothing else matters.

[JHolmesJr]

20 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

That is funny that you somehow think he will not be impeached and the votes are not there. One of us is 'WRONG!

I'll get back to you once you learn how to spell CALIFORNIA.

[Waterloo]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

to you, nothing at all.

 

to independent voters it clearly illustrates how the previous admin set out to ruthlessly 

unseat the man who humiliated their sure win candidate at the polls.

 

they see this fraudulently started surveillance as the first domino that set into motion all the events up until today.

 

now the first domino has fallen....so expect the others to come crashing down as well.

 

as you and your democrat pals in congress like to say....we don't need a crime to impeach.

all that %$#$ will not wash any more.

 

We're now in the area of public opinion and any notions of winning a house vote on impeachment are fast evaporating.

1999 US Sen Lindsey Graham claimed that a crime wasn't necessary to impeach a president, was he wrong?

[Zenwind]

The once great Republic has fallen into hysterical tribalism.  Reasoning with die-hard partisans of all sides is almost useless.  I mourn for my homeland. 

 

The Democrats are as stupid as the Republicans in this whole free-for-all clown show, mainly because they are ignoring competent legal scholars who have explained how Trump indeed committed impeachable offenses. 

 

For one, the crime of Extortion fits Trump like a glove.  More than one federal extortion statute applies.  One of them (18 USC 1601) defines it as anyone who "knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States" if that payment or benefit "is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress."

 

Get it?  Trump arbitrarily held up congressionally mandated military aid as a threat, seeking a “favor” (the public announcement of an investigation) that would benefit him as a candidate.  Read the above paragraph defining extortion again, along with the transcript of Trump’s July phone call. 

 

But the Democrats are too afraid to use word “extortion” because they know that (we) Americans will not comprehend it or take the trouble to look at the clear legal definition of it.  The word itself is scary and gives the impression that the President of the USA has – horrors! – engaged in activity one usually associates with mobsters.  (Well, yeah, it sure does.) 

 

Pelosi has mentioned the crime of Bribery, which is politically safer because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the Impeachment section, and it is something simple enough that the average person can understand.  But if they are going to go with this charge, they should get it right.  It will not work to accuse Trump of *bribing* Zelenskiy, since he is a foreign political official and federal bribery laws only pertain to US officials.  But did Trump try to *solicit a bribe* from Zelenskiy?  That is the question, and it looks like it could work. 

 

As to other high crimes and misdemeanors, a few could surely be added.  Abuse of power.  Obstruction of justice.  But I predict that the Democrats are so stupidly, rabidly, emotionally tribal that they will blow their chance to demonstrate that the constitutional rule of law should put fundamental checks upon an out-of-control power-seeking executive branch (a presidential tendency that has been arrogating itself for generations). 

 

And the Republicans are just as pathetic.  When the impeachment trial arrives at the Senate, they will just bend over and let their puppet master have his way with them. 

 

I’m heartbroken when I think of the state of my country.  To think that I volunteered for combat in 1968 to “defend” the American Way of Life, and it comes to this.  

.

[Jingthing]

 

47 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Good...he's not here to hold your hand, be a role model for your kids and sing you a lullaby every night...he's here to further America's interests. And help you benefit (hopefully) from his policies. When will the anti trump brigade understand that nothing else matters.

No. He's there to further his OWN interests. In his mind, he is the state. That's about as un-American as it gets!

[JHolmesJr]

4 minutes ago, Zenwind said:

The once great Republic has fallen into hysterical tribalism.  Reasoning with die-hard partisans of all sides is almost useless.  I mourn for my homeland. 

 

The Democrats are as stupid as the Republicans in this whole free-for-all clown show, mainly because they are ignoring competent legal scholars who have explained how Trump indeed committed impeachable offenses. 

 

For one, the crime of Extortion fits Trump like a glove.  More than one federal extortion statute applies.  One of them (18 USC 1601) defines it as anyone who "knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States" if that payment or benefit "is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress."

 

Get it?  Trump arbitrarily held up congressionally mandated military aid as a threat, seeking a “favor” (the public announcement of an investigation) that would benefit him as a candidate.  Read the above paragraph defining extortion again, along with the transcript of Trump’s July phone call. 

 

But the Democrats are too afraid to use word “extortion” because they know that (we) Americans will not comprehend it or take the trouble to look at the clear legal definition of it.  The word itself is scary and gives the impression that the President of the USA has – horrors! – engaged in activity one usually associates with mobsters.  (Well, yeah, it sure does.) 

 

Pelosi has mentioned the crime of Bribery, which is politically safer because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the Impeachment section, and it is something simple enough that the average person can understand.  But if they are going to go with this charge, they should get it right.  It will not work to accuse Trump of *bribing* Zelenskiy, since he is a foreign political official and federal bribery laws only pertain to US officials.  But did Trump try to *solicit a bribe* from Zelenskiy?  That is the question, and it looks like it could work. 

 

As to other high crimes and misdemeanors, a few could surely be added.  Abuse of power.  Obstruction of justice.  But I predict that the Democrats are so stupidly, rabidly, emotionally tribal that they will blow their chance to demonstrate that the constitutional rule of law should put fundamental checks upon an out-of-control power-seeking executive branch (a presidential tendency that has been arrogating itself for generations). 

 

And the Republicans are just as pathetic.  When the impeachment trial arrives at the Senate, they will just bend over and let their puppet master have his way with them. 

 

I’m heartbroken when I think of the state of my country.  To think that I volunteered for combat in 1968 to “defend” the American Way of Life, and it comes to this.  

.

 

LOL...cut and paste gone wild. Please contribute some original thoughts.

[metisdead]

A troll post and a reply has been removed. 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Zenwind said:

<snip>

 

Get it?  Trump arbitrarily held up congressionally mandated military aid as a threat, seeking a “favor” (the public announcement of an investigation) that would benefit him as a candidate.  Read the above paragraph defining extortion again, along with the transcript of Trump’s July phone call. 

 

<snip>

No proof of that.  Dems and libs can't accept that there's no proof.  The facts are what they are but they must be interpreted correctly else they lead to an erroneous conclusion.  Dems and libs can't understand that point and insist that they are interpreting the facts correctly.  Their interpretation follows their hatred which produces their bias.  They cannot and will not attempt to assemble the facts differently due to their hatred and bias.  Conservatives refuse to let the Dems and libs distort reality because it would be a travesty of justice to impeach the President based on a flawed interpretation which is contrary to the truth.

 

Bottom line is there is no proof whatsoever that Trump "arbitrarily" held up military aid.  There is no proof that he was seeking an investigation for the explicit reason of destroying his political opponent.

 

Cry all you want about the state of your homeland.  What's happening is a shame but there are great lessons being learned from this mass drama.  Not just for Americans but for people worldwide.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No proof of that.  Dems and libs can't accept that there's no proof.  The facts are what they are but they must be interpreted correctly else they lead to an erroneous conclusion.  Dems and libs can't understand that point and insist that they are interpreting the facts correctly.  Their interpretation follows their hatred which produces their bias.  They cannot and will not attempt to assemble the facts differently due to their hatred and bias.  Conservatives refuse to let the Dems and libs distort reality because it would be a travesty of justice to impeach the President based on a flawed interpretation which is contrary to the truth.

 

Bottom line is there is no proof whatsoever that Trump "arbitrarily" held up military aid.  There is no proof that he was seeking an investigation for the explicit reason of destroying his political opponent.

 

Cry all you want about the state of your homeland.  What's happening is a shame but there are great lessons being learned from this mass drama.  Not just for Americans but for people worldwide.

What interpretations? Testimonies under oath.

[candide]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Ok so now you can read the minds of voters.

 

Now how about the facts. What dies the I G report have to do with the impeachment. Did the IG consider it, comment on it in any way.

 

And btw, the IG report does not state what you saying it states.

Right. What has a report debunking another Trump's conspiracy to do with the impeachment?

[JHolmesJr]

So....two articles then

 

Abuse of power

Obstruction of congress

 

Hahahaha....what a random, subjective and general accusation.

Looks like they had no proof...substance...to support bribery/extortion/quid pro quo ...

so they've settled for this nonsense.

 

I want to see who votes for this garbage.

[Longcut]

9 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

I disagree. I see the House actually trying to pass legislation. The problems occur when they send anything to the Senate and Moscow Mitch simply puts it in his IGNORE drawer. He's actually the most evil person in the government, Stephen Miller included. Trump is just a bad joke.

What have they sent to the senate?

[Kelsall]

Nadler and Schiff just delineated a nothing burger.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Longcut said:

What have they sent to the senate?

Nearly 400 bills

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

[chokrai]

1 hour ago, Zenwind said:

The once great Republic has fallen into hysterical tribalism.  Reasoning with die-hard partisans of all sides is almost useless.  I mourn for my homeland. 

 

The Democrats are as stupid as the Republicans in this whole free-for-all clown show, mainly because they are ignoring competent legal scholars who have explained how Trump indeed committed impeachable offenses. 

 

For one, the crime of Extortion fits Trump like a glove.  More than one federal extortion statute applies.  One of them (18 USC 1601) defines it as anyone who "knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States" if that payment or benefit "is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress."

 

Get it?  Trump arbitrarily held up congressionally mandated military aid as a threat, seeking a “favor” (the public announcement of an investigation) that would benefit him as a candidate.  Read the above paragraph defining extortion again, along with the transcript of Trump’s July phone call. 

 

But the Democrats are too afraid to use word “extortion” because they know that (we) Americans will not comprehend it or take the trouble to look at the clear legal definition of it.  The word itself is scary and gives the impression that the President of the USA has – horrors! – engaged in activity one usually associates with mobsters.  (Well, yeah, it sure does.) 

 

Pelosi has mentioned the crime of Bribery, which is politically safer because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in the Impeachment section, and it is something simple enough that the average person can understand.  But if they are going to go with this charge, they should get it right.  It will not work to accuse Trump of *bribing* Zelenskiy, since he is a foreign political official and federal bribery laws only pertain to US officials.  But did Trump try to *solicit a bribe* from Zelenskiy?  That is the question, and it looks like it could work. 

 

As to other high crimes and misdemeanors, a few could surely be added.  Abuse of power.  Obstruction of justice.  But I predict that the Democrats are so stupidly, rabidly, emotionally tribal that they will blow their chance to demonstrate that the constitutional rule of law should put fundamental checks upon an out-of-control power-seeking executive branch (a presidential tendency that has been arrogating itself for generations). 

 

And the Republicans are just as pathetic.  When the impeachment trial arrives at the Senate, they will just bend over and let their puppet master have his way with them. 

 

I’m heartbroken when I think of the state of my country.  To think that I volunteered for combat in 1968 to “defend” the American Way of Life, and it comes to this.  

.

What a load of <deleted>. 

[Tug]

Well I watched part of the hearings absolutely no defense of trump was offered by the republicans obviously he is indefensible all they offered up was continued obstruction Rudy just got back from Ukraine with more russan disinformation to attempt to turn the hearing into a clown fest I’m amazed only two articles beeing offered against this obviously corrupt man keep in mind he was just fined two million dollars for running a scam Charity our enemies are having a field day with this president and our allies are laughing at him we need a change come on 2020

[Kelsall]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Well I watched part of the hearings absolutely no defense of trump was offered by the republicans obviously he is indefensible all they offered up was continued obstruction Rudy just got back from Ukraine with more russan disinformation to attempt to turn the hearing into a clown fest I’m amazed only two articles beeing offered against this obviously corrupt man keep in mind he was just fined two million dollars for running a scam Charity our enemies are having a field day with this president and our allies are laughing at him we need a change come on 2020

Yep, even with stretching the truth all the Dems could come up with were two lame articles of impeachment which will die on the vine.  The impeachment that never happened.

[JHolmesJr]

6 minutes ago, Tug said:

Well I watched part of the hearings absolutely no defense of trump was offered by the republicans obviously he is indefensible all they offered up was continued obstruction Rudy just got back from Ukraine with more russan disinformation to attempt to turn the hearing into a clown fest I’m amazed only two articles beeing offered against this obviously corrupt man keep in mind he was just fined two million dollars for running a scam Charity our enemies are having a field day with this president and our allies are laughing at him we need a change come on 2020

 

I think they defended him with vigour, zeal and integrity....something his accusers are sorely lacking.

Wait a minute.....we haven't even seen his accuser yet. LOL.

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Yep, even with stretching the truth all the Dems could come up with were two lame articles of impeachment which will die on the vine.  The impeachment that never happened.

 

Yeah....the senate might vote to dismiss right away.

So it may not even go to trial....what a show the Dems put on....

 

Now Nancy and some anonymous dude are trying to claim credit for the USMCA...seems

like there is no end to their duplicity. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

So....two articles then

 

Abuse of power

Obstruction of congress

 

Hahahaha....what a random, subjective and general accusation.

Looks like they had no proof...substance...to support bribery/extortion/quid pro quo ...

so they've settled for this nonsense.

 

I want to see who votes for this garbage.

Bribery, extortion comes under abuse of power.

[JHolmesJr]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Bribery, extortion comes under abuse of power.

 

And calling Nancy nervous.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, candide said:

What interpretations? Testimonies under oath.

A bunch of clowns expressing their opinions, their presumptions, their suppositions, their speculations . . . their interpretations.  That was their testimony.  Each witness was asked point blank if they had any definitive proof of quid pro quo and all responded similarly . . . like deer caught in headlights.

 

All the witnesses gave their interpretations of the facts.  And were wrong.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

A bunch of clowns expressing their opinions, their presumptions, their suppositions, their speculations . . . their interpretations.  That was their testimony.  Each witness was asked point blank if they had any definitive proof of quid pro quo and all responded similarly . . . like deer caught in headlights.

 

All the witnesses gave their interpretations of the facts.  And were wrong.

How where they wrong. Did anyone give evidence to say that?