At 9/24/19 08:59 PM, valken666 wrote:
Will he be impeached, or not?
He'll probably be impeached, with Democrats having the majority in the house. He'll probably not be removed because you'd need all of the Senate Democrats AND dozens of Republicans to agree to do so.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
Two things:
Trump is sicking the EPA on California, with the agency threatening to withhold billions in highways funds to the state, claiming it is failing pollution standards of the clean air act - something Trump has already killed off. All of of this is in retaliation for the state not bowing to his demands on getting rid of the states vehicle emission standard that reduces vehicle emissions - many states are supporting California by suing the administration over this demand. I don't expect this threat to work, but backfire on the Trump administration.
The other is the Trump administration attacking China on it's human rights abuse over Muslims, during a critical time in trade talks. First, the Trump administration is in no position to criticize China after theri own persecution of that group through Trump's own Muslim travel ban, and immigration internment, and this is a good way to make it harder to come to any trade agreement with China. This is all truly baffling.
It's stuff like this that makes Trump seems like he has some sort of mental problems, and that he, and his cabinet, can't tell the truth for the life of them.
At 9/24/19 08:59 PM, valken666 wrote: So impeachment proceedings have been declared by Pelosi.
Trump is planning on releasing the transcript of his talk with President Zelensky of Ukraine tomorrow.
Will he be impeached, or not?
Unfortunately, there is a lot of internal friction going on in the Democrat party over impeaching Trump. Most of the public is not to keen on impeaching a sitting president (even if token in meaning), which has a lot of Democrats worried about a possible backlash.
There is also a lot of counter tactics going on to counter the Democrat narrative by Trump supporting Republicans, who are downplaying all of this and arguing that it's Biden who is corupt. And Trump is trying to promote the idea that he has nothing to hide by releasing just the transcripts of his conversation with the Ukraine president - though, they will most likely be sanitized if it does get released, hiding the more damaging parts as executive privilege and national security.
It really depends if Democrats can get the people involved in all of this to cooperate with them, without blind loyalty to Trump or out of fear of Trump. It's been very difficult for Democrats to get get cooperative witnesses - with the White House going out of their way to ignore subpoenas and preventing witnesses from testifying.
So, the memo, or "not a verbatim" transcript, were released by the White House, incriminating Trump for trying to get a foreign country to help his 2020 campaign by investigating one of his political opponent, Joe Biden. While there is no actual words of Trump using foreign aid as a quid pro quo in exchange for this, it seems to be heavily implied - even in this version of the transcript. He also wanted dirt on the DNC, by asking about Crowdstrike, which is a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the DNC, tracing it to Russia.
Two other things that this memo shows is that Trump is profiting from his foreign interactions, with the President of Ukraine telling him that he, and people he knows, have stayed at Trump towers. And Trump also reconfirmed the part that his lawyer Giuliani played in trying to mediate some agreement over all of this.
Oh, and the White House accidentally sends counter talking point to impeachment to the Democrats... Ooops.
Trump's crazy lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is accusing Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and an FBI agent,of colluding with Ukraine, while calling another person a serial liar and a moron - I guess irony is dead.
And most Republicans are making similar crazy remarks, trying to exonerate Trump over a pretty clear cut case of attempted collusion with a foreign country to interfere in US elections. I think Trump should change his slogan from "American first" to "Get another country to help him win".
I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.
At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.
Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
At 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.
At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil war
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.
Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
At 9/26/19 04:36 AM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil warAt 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
I agree that it's a problem, but I don't know if implicit bribery is against the law. Even the lawyers are fighting over it.
At 9/26/19 04:53 AM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 04:36 AM, EdyKel wrote:I agree that it's a problem, but I don't know if implicit bribery is against the law. Even the lawyers are fighting over it.At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil warAt 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
*sigh.
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him. And Trump, in this release memo, implicated the state department, and the DOJ, and his personnel lawyer, in complicity in the crime. It's very serious.
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections? And why they thought that Trump colluded with them?
At 9/26/19 12:48 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him...
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections?
Legit question: which law was broken? If I recall, the reason the Russia incident was bad was because of the Logan act, which strictly applies to private citizens (which at the time, he was). Since Trump is the President, any dealing between Ukraine and himself becomes official government business, by definition.
I'm not trying to play gotcha, since I'm 90% sure what he did broke some sort of law, but I haven't been able to figure out which law, yet.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
At 9/26/19 12:48 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 04:53 AM, valken666 wrote:*sigh.At 9/26/19 04:36 AM, EdyKel wrote:I agree that it's a problem, but I don't know if implicit bribery is against the law. Even the lawyers are fighting over it.At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil warAt 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him. And Trump, in this release memo, implicated the state department, and the DOJ, and his personnel lawyer, in complicity in the crime. It's very serious.
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections? And why they thought that Trump colluded with them?
The left says Russia helped Trump, the right says Russia helped Hillary with the Steele dossier that she paid. Neither are in prison, so is it really against the law? At the very least it's not an enforced law.
We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.
At 9/26/19 01:22 PM, Gario wrote:At 9/26/19 12:48 PM, EdyKel wrote:Legit question: which law was broken? If I recall, the reason the Russia incident was bad was because of the Logan act, which strictly applies to private citizens (which at the time, he was). Since Trump is the President, any dealing between Ukraine and himself becomes official government business, by definition.
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him...
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections?
I'm not trying to play gotcha, since I'm 90% sure what he did broke some sort of law, but I haven't been able to figure out which law, yet.
Well, as @JosephStarr pointed out, the act itself could easily be considered treasonous. Even in our Constitution, our forefathers went to great lengths to ensure that our president was loyal to our country, not working with another foreign country to undermine it.
But, the law that well most likely be used by Democrats are the federal election laws, over who can contribute, which states : "prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local."
It's pretty clear that just by requesting a foreign government to contribute a "thing of value", an act to break a known law - and they can't claim some ignorance of not knowing the law, not after Muller used that excuse to get Trump's son off the hook after he tried to get dirt from Russia on Clinton. Trump intent, and the act of hiding it, is pretty clear - he was trying to hide the actual transcript of this call, according to the whistle blower, because he knew it was wrong.
Then there is the "quid pro quo", which is very much associated with breaking some corruption law. In this case, holding military aid funds to force something in return for it, such as opening up an investigation, or getting getting any information (true or not), over a political opponent. This might be harder to prove, and why it is necessary to get the full transcripts of the call.
Here's an article that delves deeper in it.
Also, you can use any of the GOP arguments that they used to impeach Clinton, or their arguments against Obama over Russia, or even the Steele dossier.
At 9/26/19 01:23 PM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 12:48 PM, EdyKel wrote:The left says Russia helped Trump, the right says Russia helped Hillary with the Steele dossier that she paid. Neither are in prison, so is it really against the law? At the very least it's not an enforced law.At 9/26/19 04:53 AM, valken666 wrote:*sigh.At 9/26/19 04:36 AM, EdyKel wrote:I agree that it's a problem, but I don't know if implicit bribery is against the law. Even the lawyers are fighting over it.At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil warAt 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him. And Trump, in this release memo, implicated the state department, and the DOJ, and his personnel lawyer, in complicity in the crime. It's very serious.
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections? And why they thought that Trump colluded with them?
No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.
We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.
The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
At 9/26/19 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 01:23 PM, valken666 wrote:No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.At 9/26/19 12:48 PM, EdyKel wrote:The left says Russia helped Trump, the right says Russia helped Hillary with the Steele dossier that she paid. Neither are in prison, so is it really against the law? At the very least it's not an enforced law.At 9/26/19 04:53 AM, valken666 wrote:*sigh.At 9/26/19 04:36 AM, EdyKel wrote:I agree that it's a problem, but I don't know if implicit bribery is against the law. Even the lawyers are fighting over it.At 9/26/19 04:14 AM, valken666 wrote:True, there was nothing explicit in the released memo (which is a summary) that had Trump offering something in exchange for something. But the act of a US president telling a president of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, while having military aid to their country frozen before talking to them, sends a pretty damning message to them - obey, or you won't have this money to help fight your civil warAt 9/26/19 04:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:For one, even Cuomo agreed that there was no explicit quid pro quo. Also, Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said that legally it's nothing. I think it's related to legal jargon.At 9/26/19 03:20 AM, valken666 wrote: I haven't seen anything Trump did divide people so much, or so clearly, than this transcript. The left and the right see the same text and have completely opposite opinions. After watching both left and right channels I have no idea who is right on this one, both have good arguments. I lean a little towards Trump being guilty.Really? And what was the argument from the right that sounded reasonable to you?
I mean, Trump basically asked a foreign country to go after one of his biggest political rivals, over something that is almost 4 years old, while halting military funding before calling the new president of that country. That implies a veiled threat if Ukraine doesn't do what Trump wants. Just the act of opening an investigation to someone connected to Joe Biden is enough to help Trump out.
As for Biden's son, the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor, the center of the allegation of corruption towards him, was started before he even entered the picture. According to Ukrainian officials, this prosecutor was the biggest obstacle to cleaning up any corruption in the country by doing basically nothing about it - and there was no pressure from the US to get rid of him.
No, this conspiracy has no legs to stand on. It was simply to bring suspicion and doubt towards Joe Biden, and hurt him, by a corupt, and dirty, president.
And DiGenova is a conspiratory nutcase - you should look him up. Another Fox News legal expert, and a conservative, Andrew Napolitano, had this to say about it: Trump's brazen acts of corruption
My opinion is that Trump walks right at the line, almost crossing it, just like Alex Jones used to do on Youtube. Until one day he finally got banned from the platform.Alex Jones always crossed the line, and it began getting places shot up and victims harassed - not to mention making people stupid who listened to him. Trump has been crossing the line since he entered office, and has normalized it.
Just the act of asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent is against the US election laws, whether there was bribery or not would have just added to the case against him. And Trump, in this release memo, implicated the state department, and the DOJ, and his personnel lawyer, in complicity in the crime. It's very serious.
Why do you think people were angry when Russia helped Trump to win the 2016 elections? And why they thought that Trump colluded with them?
A conservative website hiring them at first doesn't change the fact that in April 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, and paid $1.02 million for it. Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
I agree. Perhaps the only thing we disagree about is on Trump barely crossing the line.
At 9/26/19 03:41 PM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote: No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.A conservative website hiring them at first doesn't change the fact that in April 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, and paid $1.02 million for it. Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
Again, it's more complicated than that.The firm they hired, GPS fusion, was non-partisan, and an independent company, who contracted Steele - the DNC did not personally hire Steele to get rumors from people in other countries. In the Steele dossier. Some of those rumors talked about Russia backing Trump, and rumors of conspiracy, and Trump's hatred of Obama. Hmmm... So, since they didn't personally hire Steel, and they weren't going through a government to get information, they are technically in the clear - a loophole.
Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
And, again, it's more complicated. Outside of Trump telling foreign countries to go after Clinton e-mails of his political rival during a public speech, that isn't necessary illegal, just incredibly wrong on so many levels. The fact that it happened can be brush off as a coincidence, because there is no hard proof that Trump, or those working for him, colluded with Russia, even though many of them had ties to that country - and publicly lied about them.
I agree. Perhaps the only thing we disagree about is on Trump barely crossing the line.
We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
Do you think a president of the US should personally, and privately, asked a leader of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, with his personal lawyer helping out, along with the DOJ and the State Department, while freezing military aid funds that were bipartisan approved by Congress to that country before talking to him, while ignoring other legit channels first? "Yes, or No."
At 9/26/19 04:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 03:41 PM, valken666 wrote:Again, it's more complicated than that.The firm they hired, GPS fusion, was non-partisan, and an independent company, who contracted Steele - the DNC did not personally hire Steele to get rumors from people in other countries. In the Steele dossier. Some of those rumors talked about Russia backing Trump, and rumors of conspiracy, and Trump's hatred of Obama. Hmmm... So, since they didn't personally hire Steel, and they weren't going through a government to get information, they are technically in the clear - a loophole.At 9/26/19 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote: No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.A conservative website hiring them at first doesn't change the fact that in April 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, and paid $1.02 million for it. Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.And, again, it's more complicated. Outside of Trump telling foreign countries to go after Clinton e-mails of his political rival during a public speech, that isn't necessary illegal, just incredibly wrong on so many levels. The fact that it happened can be brush off as a coincidence, because there is no hard proof that Trump, or those working for him, colluded with Russia, even though many of them had ties to that country - and publicly lied about them.
Then everybody is innocent.
Do you think a president of the US should personally, and privately, asked a leader of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, with his personal lawyer helping out, along with the DOJ and the State Department, while freezing military aid funds that were bipartisan approved by Congress to that country before talking to him, while ignoring other legit channels first? "Yes, or No."
I agree. Perhaps the only thing we disagree about is on Trump barely crossing the line.
We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
Does it look bad? Yes it does. At least he could have waited until after the primaries. To do this right when Biden is the top candidate certainly looks bad for Trump.
At 9/26/19 05:02 PM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 04:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Then everybody is innocent.At 9/26/19 03:41 PM, valken666 wrote:Again, it's more complicated than that.The firm they hired, GPS fusion, was non-partisan, and an independent company, who contracted Steele - the DNC did not personally hire Steele to get rumors from people in other countries. In the Steele dossier. Some of those rumors talked about Russia backing Trump, and rumors of conspiracy, and Trump's hatred of Obama. Hmmm... So, since they didn't personally hire Steel, and they weren't going through a government to get information, they are technically in the clear - a loophole.At 9/26/19 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote: No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.A conservative website hiring them at first doesn't change the fact that in April 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, and paid $1.02 million for it. Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.And, again, it's more complicated. Outside of Trump telling foreign countries to go after Clinton e-mails of his political rival during a public speech, that isn't necessary illegal, just incredibly wrong on so many levels. The fact that it happened can be brush off as a coincidence, because there is no hard proof that Trump, or those working for him, colluded with Russia, even though many of them had ties to that country - and publicly lied about them.
Are they? Which one is worse:
A collection of rumors that indicated a certain closeness with the trump campaign and Russia (with family and Trump campaign officials trying to create Russian contacts to find dirt on Clinton), and that country's interest in interfering in this country's elections to help Trump win, all of which seemed to have come true.
Or
Trump publicly wanting a foreign country to find dirt on his political opponent on a public platform, which happened through a foreign country hacking the DNC. Or trump's Family, and campaign officials signaling to Russian officials to find dirt on Trump's political opponent. Meanwhile, up to a few months before the 2016 election, Trump was seeking to get permission to build a Trump Tower in Moscow (which he lied about to the public). Or lying about his relationship with Putin.
After Trump won the election, he was trying to create closer ties with Russia by easing sanctions on them (after they interfered in our elections), or having secret meeting with Putin, or other top Russian officials, that no US official (not even people close to Trump could attend. And this is on Top of Trump leaking US secrets to Russia and to the world, while attacking our intelligence agencies to believe what Russia says.... And our our intelligence agencies no longer trust Trump with sensitive information.
With the way that Trump constantly praises Putin, or Russia, and works to undermine this country, it almost seems he works for them, while that country vilifies the US, and threatens it with nukes.
Does it look bad? Yes it does. At least he could have waited until after the primaries. To do this right when Biden is the top candidate certainly looks bad for Trump.Do you think a president of the US should personally, and privately, asked a leader of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, with his personal lawyer helping out, along with the DOJ and the State Department, while freezing military aid funds that were bipartisan approved by Congress to that country before talking to him, while ignoring other legit channels first? "Yes, or No."I agree. Perhaps the only thing we disagree about is on Trump barely crossing the line.We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
He was looking for a reason to talk to him, and congratulating him on winning the Ukraine election seemed like a good time - along with the foreign military aid to that country he couldn't hold off indefinite without explaing why . Besides, he want sWarren or Sanders to run against him, not Biden. Taking Biden out early would help him, rather than later.
At 9/26/19 07:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 05:02 PM, valken666 wrote:Are they? Which one is worse:At 9/26/19 04:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Then everybody is innocent.At 9/26/19 03:41 PM, valken666 wrote:Again, it's more complicated than that.The firm they hired, GPS fusion, was non-partisan, and an independent company, who contracted Steele - the DNC did not personally hire Steele to get rumors from people in other countries. In the Steele dossier. Some of those rumors talked about Russia backing Trump, and rumors of conspiracy, and Trump's hatred of Obama. Hmmm... So, since they didn't personally hire Steel, and they weren't going through a government to get information, they are technically in the clear - a loophole.At 9/26/19 02:24 PM, EdyKel wrote: No, the Steel dossier was originally funded by the GOP, then picked up by the DNC, then leaked to the public. The author of the dossier was a retired British MI6 agent, who basically collected a bunch of rumors from people he knew in Russia - nothing that could be substantiated. This differs from having a foreign government hack into the personnel emails of the DNC, and then publicly release them. Rumors are one thing, but actual documents are another thing - whith one thing being more damaging than the other.A conservative website hiring them at first doesn't change the fact that in April 2016 Hillary Clinton's campaign separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, and paid $1.02 million for it. Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.
Trump did ask for the emails, that you're right about.And, again, it's more complicated. Outside of Trump telling foreign countries to go after Clinton e-mails of his political rival during a public speech, that isn't necessary illegal, just incredibly wrong on so many levels. The fact that it happened can be brush off as a coincidence, because there is no hard proof that Trump, or those working for him, colluded with Russia, even though many of them had ties to that country - and publicly lied about them.
A collection of rumors that indicated a certain closeness with the trump campaign and Russia (with family and Trump campaign officials trying to create Russian contacts to find dirt on Clinton), and that country's interest in interfering in this country's elections to help Trump win, all of which seemed to have come true.
Or
Trump publicly wanting a foreign country to find dirt on his political opponent on a public platform, which happened through a foreign country hacking the DNC. Or trump's Family, and campaign officials signaling to Russian officials to find dirt on Trump's political opponent. Meanwhile, up to a few months before the 2016 election, Trump was seeking to get permission to build a Trump Tower in Moscow (which he lied about to the public). Or lying about his relationship with Putin.
After Trump won the election, he was trying to create closer ties with Russia by easing sanctions on them (after they interfered in our elections), or having secret meeting with Putin, or other top Russian officials, that no US official (not even people close to Trump could attend. And this is on Top of Trump leaking US secrets to Russia and to the world, while attacking our intelligence agencies to believe what Russia says.... And our our intelligence agencies no longer trust Trump with sensitive information.
With the way that Trump constantly praises Putin, or Russia, and works to undermine this country, it almost seems he works for them, while that country vilifies the US, and threatens it with nukes.
Rumors don't have much legal weight. As I mentioned, I think Trump is pulling an "Alex Jones" on the left to drive them crazy. In my opinion this should be investigated further, but Mueller came with empty hands. So unless Trump makes a big mistake, there is nothing that can be done about it.
He was looking for a reason to talk to him, and congratulating him on winning the Ukraine election seemed like a good time - along with the foreign military aid to that country he couldn't hold off indefinite without explaing why . Besides, he want sWarren or Sanders to run against him, not Biden. Taking Biden out early would help him, rather than later.Does it look bad? Yes it does. At least he could have waited until after the primaries. To do this right when Biden is the top candidate certainly looks bad for Trump.Do you think a president of the US should personally, and privately, asked a leader of a foreign country to investigate a political rival, with his personal lawyer helping out, along with the DOJ and the State Department, while freezing military aid funds that were bipartisan approved by Congress to that country before talking to him, while ignoring other legit channels first? "Yes, or No."I agree. Perhaps the only thing we disagree about is on Trump barely crossing the line.We're dealing with rich, powerful people here. They use and can twist words a lot to their benefit. As an example, Trump would have to be "coordinating" the Russian meddling. Lawyers can twist the facts both ways into saying that he coordinated or not, since arguably he did it subtly. And if you arrest Trump it could backfire by the right saying it's a coup, so the left thinks it must be careful with that.The intent alone, which Trump has pretty much confirmed, and which he can't claim ignorance over it after his son tried to do the same thing - which Mueller gave a life line to because of ignorance - is grounds for impeachment. It was intent that the GOP used to impeach Clinton with.
That's a bit conspiratorial, but maybe.
At 9/26/19 08:43 PM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 07:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:Rumors don't have much legal weight. As I mentioned, I think Trump is pulling an "Alex Jones" on the left to drive them crazy. In my opinion this should be investigated further, but Mueller came with empty hands. So unless Trump makes a big mistake, there is nothing that can be done about it.At 9/26/19 05:02 PM, valken666 wrote:Are they? Which one is worse:At 9/26/19 04:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Then everybody is innocent.
A collection of rumors that indicated a certain closeness with the trump campaign and Russia (with family and Trump campaign officials trying to create Russian contacts to find dirt on Clinton), and that country's interest in interfering in this country's elections to help Trump win, all of which seemed to have come true.
Or
Trump publicly wanting a foreign country to find dirt on his political opponent on a public platform, which happened through a foreign country hacking the DNC. Or trump's Family, and campaign officials signaling to Russian officials to find dirt on Trump's political opponent. Meanwhile, up to a few months before the 2016 election, Trump was seeking to get permission to build a Trump Tower in Moscow (which he lied about to the public). Or lying about his relationship with Putin.
After Trump won the election, he was trying to create closer ties with Russia by easing sanctions on them (after they interfered in our elections), or having secret meeting with Putin, or other top Russian officials, that no US official (not even people close to Trump could attend. And this is on Top of Trump leaking US secrets to Russia and to the world, while attacking our intelligence agencies to believe what Russia says.... And our our intelligence agencies no longer trust Trump with sensitive information.
With the way that Trump constantly praises Putin, or Russia, and works to undermine this country, it almost seems he works for them, while that country vilifies the US, and threatens it with nukes.
And yet, you have accepted Trump is a Nazi, and Sanders is a communist.... Yet, you continue to downplay all this by saying that Trump is just trolling the left. I doubt you would have that same argument with Sanders trolling the right. But, I expect nothing less of you clear double standard, and false equivalencies.
Mueller met a lot of resistance to his investigation, mostly with those in the Trump campaign, and Trump white House, who refuse to answer his questions, with Trump publicly floating pardons to them if they stayed loyal to him.
And Trump refused to be interviewed by Muller (lying to the special counsel is a crime, which got Clinton), so Muller did an incomplete investigation by not properly doing his job - he was, after all a conservative, and a Republican. And Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything, especially not on obstruction, where he had some damning words in his report towards Trump's actions.
That's a bit conspiratorial, but maybe.Does it look bad? Yes it does. At least he could have waited until after the primaries. To do this right when Biden is the top candidate certainly looks bad for Trump.He was looking for a reason to talk to him, and congratulating him on winning the Ukraine election seemed like a good time - along with the foreign military aid to that country he couldn't hold off indefinite without explaing why . Besides, he want sWarren or Sanders to run against him, not Biden. Taking Biden out early would help him, rather than later.
There is nothing conspiratory that Trump wanted Biden out of the way, and would prefer to go up against other Democrat candidates. The media has been talking about this shit for months before this happened.
And even Late Night Talk Show hosts have zeroed in on how damning the released call summary was.
At 9/26/19 09:22 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 08:43 PM, valken666 wrote:And yet, you have accepted Trump is a Nazi, and Sanders is a communist.... Yet, you continue to downplay all this by saying that Trump is just trolling the left. I doubt you would have that same argument with Sanders trolling the right. But, I expect nothing less of you clear double standard, and false equivalencies.At 9/26/19 07:56 PM, EdyKel wrote:Rumors don't have much legal weight. As I mentioned, I think Trump is pulling an "Alex Jones" on the left to drive them crazy. In my opinion this should be investigated further, but Mueller came with empty hands. So unless Trump makes a big mistake, there is nothing that can be done about it.At 9/26/19 05:02 PM, valken666 wrote:Are they? Which one is worse:At 9/26/19 04:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Then everybody is innocent.
A collection of rumors that indicated a certain closeness with the trump campaign and Russia (with family and Trump campaign officials trying to create Russian contacts to find dirt on Clinton), and that country's interest in interfering in this country's elections to help Trump win, all of which seemed to have come true.
Or
Trump publicly wanting a foreign country to find dirt on his political opponent on a public platform, which happened through a foreign country hacking the DNC. Or trump's Family, and campaign officials signaling to Russian officials to find dirt on Trump's political opponent. Meanwhile, up to a few months before the 2016 election, Trump was seeking to get permission to build a Trump Tower in Moscow (which he lied about to the public). Or lying about his relationship with Putin.
After Trump won the election, he was trying to create closer ties with Russia by easing sanctions on them (after they interfered in our elections), or having secret meeting with Putin, or other top Russian officials, that no US official (not even people close to Trump could attend. And this is on Top of Trump leaking US secrets to Russia and to the world, while attacking our intelligence agencies to believe what Russia says.... And our our intelligence agencies no longer trust Trump with sensitive information.
With the way that Trump constantly praises Putin, or Russia, and works to undermine this country, it almost seems he works for them, while that country vilifies the US, and threatens it with nukes.
Mueller met a lot of resistance to his investigation, mostly with those in the Trump campaign, and Trump white House, who refuse to answer his questions, with Trump publicly floating pardons to them if they stayed loyal to him.
And Trump refused to be interviewed by Muller (lying to the special counsel is a crime, which got Clinton), so Muller did an incomplete investigation by not properly doing his job - he was, after all a conservative, and a Republican. And Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything, especially not on obstruction, where he had some damning words in his report towards Trump's actions.
Bernie is also trolling everyone by selling his communist ideas.
If Democrats win maybe someone can reopen the investigation.
There is nothing conspiratory that Trump wanted Biden out of the way, and would prefer to go up against other Democrat candidates. The media has been talking about this shit for months before this happened.That's a bit conspiratorial, but maybe.Does it look bad? Yes it does. At least he could have waited until after the primaries. To do this right when Biden is the top candidate certainly looks bad for Trump.He was looking for a reason to talk to him, and congratulating him on winning the Ukraine election seemed like a good time - along with the foreign military aid to that country he couldn't hold off indefinite without explaing why . Besides, he want sWarren or Sanders to run against him, not Biden. Taking Biden out early would help him, rather than later.
And even Late Night Talk Show hosts have zeroed in on how damning the released call summary was.
Trump wanting Biden out of the way is not conspiratorial, but the way you describe his thoughts is.
At 9/26/19 10:04 PM, valken666 wrote:At 9/26/19 09:22 PM, EdyKel wrote: There is nothing conspiratory that Trump wanted Biden out of the way, and would prefer to go up against other Democrat candidates. The media has been talking about this shit for months before this happened.Trump wanting Biden out of the way is not conspiratorial, but the way you describe his thoughts is.
And even Late Night Talk Show hosts have zeroed in on how damning the released call summary was.
What do you think we are talking about? Trump is accused of a conspiracy to collud with a foreign country to take Biden down, who is a big threat to Trump's reelection chances. That what all this boils down to.
So, another day, another list of stupid shit from Trump who digs himself a deeper hole with his own shovel. First it was the phone call summary his administration released, and now they are admitting that Trump is using specialized servers to hide these calls - and Russia seems worried.....
Trump seemed to imply that whistle blowers are treasonous spies, and should be executed.
Trump might have thrown his VP, Mike pence, under the bus by claiming that he had several calls with Ukraine as well?
And public opinion is slowly shifting on impeachment as people learn more of the details.
Meanwhile, Republicans are still backing the president; and Trump loyalist, US house Rep. Devin Nunes, known for working closely with the administration when he was supposedly charged with investigating them, says that Democrats are looking for nude pictures of Trump....
At 9/26/19 02:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/26/19 01:22 PM, Gario wrote:But, the law that well most likely be used by Democrats are the federal election laws, over who can contribute, which states : "prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local."
Legit question: which law was broken?
I'm not trying to play gotcha, since I'm 90% sure what he did broke some sort of law, but I haven't been able to figure out which law, yet.
Ah, that's the one.
Wait a day and the thread continues, but thanks for that.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
So now Trump is demanding Schiff resign. Maybe he's finally losing his calm after the leak.
At 9/27/19 04:21 PM, Gario wrote:At 9/26/19 02:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Ah, that's the one.At 9/26/19 01:22 PM, Gario wrote:But, the law that well most likely be used by Democrats are the federal election laws, over who can contribute, which states : "prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local."
Legit question: which law was broken?
I'm not trying to play gotcha, since I'm 90% sure what he did broke some sort of law, but I haven't been able to figure out which law, yet.
Wait a day and the thread continues, but thanks for that.
Two things
Abuse of power, not criminality, key to Trump impeachment
"Democratic lawmakers have a strong case for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump if they can prove he abused his power when he asked Ukraine's president to "look into" an American political rival, several legal experts said."
"The legal experts said the central question in an impeachment inquiry is whether Trump put his interest above those of the nation by leveraging aid to Ukraine in return for incriminating information. Evidence of a cover-up could strengthen the impeachment case, they said."
Why We Don’t Need To Debate ‘High Crimes And Misdemeanors’ For A Trump Impeachment
"Let’s make this real simple. The impeachment clause of the Constitution describes three major assaults on the state as reasons for Congress to remove a president: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"In terms of Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, there is little need to engage in a debate over what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Instead, they clearly fit the definition of bribery."
"In this case, Trump appears to have used the power of his office to extort a foreign country (Ukraine) by twisting the good relations between the two and the military aid provided by the U.S. — things the Ukrainian government is dependent upon — into a bribe in exchange for a personal favor for Trump going into the 2020 election."
At 9/27/19 06:59 PM, valken666 wrote: So now Trump is demanding Schiff resign. Maybe he's finally losing his calm after the leak.
He never really had that much calm to begin with. When he gets mad he says a lot more stupid shit - more than normal. He said that House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is no longer speaker of the House. And the the troll sharks are chewing at him over his twitter grammar, making him even angrier.
At 9/27/19 08:54 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 9/27/19 04:21 PM, Gario wrote:Two thingsAt 9/26/19 02:10 PM, EdyKel wrote:Ah, that's the one.At 9/26/19 01:22 PM, Gario wrote:But, the law that well most likely be used by Democrats are the federal election laws, over who can contribute, which states : "prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local."
Legit question: which law was broken?
I'm not trying to play gotcha, since I'm 90% sure what he did broke some sort of law, but I haven't been able to figure out which law, yet.
Wait a day and the thread continues, but thanks for that.
Abuse of power, not criminality, key to Trump impeachment
"Democratic lawmakers have a strong case for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump if they can prove he abused his power when he asked Ukraine's president to "look into" an American political rival, several legal experts said."
"The legal experts said the central question in an impeachment inquiry is whether Trump put his interest above those of the nation by leveraging aid to Ukraine in return for incriminating information. Evidence of a cover-up could strengthen the impeachment case, they said."
Why We Don’t Need To Debate ‘High Crimes And Misdemeanors’ For A Trump Impeachment
"Let’s make this real simple. The impeachment clause of the Constitution describes three major assaults on the state as reasons for Congress to remove a president: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
"In terms of Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, there is little need to engage in a debate over what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Instead, they clearly fit the definition of bribery."
"In this case, Trump appears to have used the power of his office to extort a foreign country (Ukraine) by twisting the good relations between the two and the military aid provided by the U.S. — things the Ukrainian government is dependent upon — into a bribe in exchange for a personal favor for Trump going into the 2020 election."
Some problems are appearing for Biden as well, though.
At 9/27/19 06:59 PM, valken666 wrote: So now Trump is demanding Schiff resign. Maybe he's finally losing his calm after the leak.He never really had that much calm to begin with. When he gets mad he says a lot more stupid shit - more than normal. He said that House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is no longer speaker of the House. And the the troll sharks are chewing at him over his twitter grammar, making him even angrier.
As far as he is concerned, not the rest of us.
At 9/27/19 09:41 PM, valken666 wrote: Some problems are appearing for Biden as well, though.
I was writing a long respnse to this, but then decided to plainly ask you for a brief summary of the article to make sure you understood who wrote it, and the evidence they are claiming against Biden and his son. I think it's time you learn what critical thinking is.
As far as he is concerned, not the rest of us.At 9/27/19 06:59 PM, valken666 wrote: So now Trump is demanding Schiff resign. Maybe he's finally losing his calm after the leak.He never really had that much calm to begin with. When he gets mad he says a lot more stupid shit - more than normal. He said that House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is no longer speaker of the House. And the the troll sharks are chewing at him over his twitter grammar, making him even angrier.
But this is your biggest argument with BIden, his gaffes. And yet, "ehh", who cares, with Trump - and he is our president. Hmmm....
