Trump tied himself to his campaign. So you could vouch technically correct, but at the same time it wasn't breaking the law.

Obama was correct on this. He didn't want to make this more partisan than it already was.

Yeah the Obama administration didn't wiretap him. The USA Freedom Act is pretty much the process the FBI used to do the wiretapping. I was saying that even if Obama did it, which he didn't, he would have been allowed to by the USA Freedom Act.

This is true.

Careful now with numbers. That's a nice headline. The full story is different.

It doesn't change the fact that Trump was not the one being personally investigated, until after the election. And it all had to do with members of his campaign making contacts with Russian officials, which got even more attention because of activities by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And it was Australia that first alerted our government that Trump campaign officials were looking to Russia to find dirt on his rival.

What Trump did was to manipulate the narrative that vilifies Obama while making him into a victim. So, according to polls, about 80% of Republicans, 20% of Democrats, believed that the Obama administration spied on the Trump administration. It doesn't matter if certain members of the Tump campaign were investigated by the FBI, and not the Obama admin, or thatTRump wasn't wiretapped, many people now believe that the Obama admin intentinally spied on the Trump camapign to help Hillary out.

I already pointed this out here:

This was based on a previous poll I read where it was 80% who thought it was wrong with what Trump did over Ukraine. This was just a latest poll I saw today, and decide to post it.

While I can’t stand public polls as news stories, to me we’re splitting hairs about whether a voter considers that’s wrong.

They don’t get a say on whether he gets removed from office/impeached or not.

^^^

this.

also, that same poll said only around 21 percent where actually watching/ paying attention to the hearings. I feel it is VERY necessary to have these and hold the presidency accountable for the laws it's broken and terrible ethical practices as doing nothing will make these actions more ok in the future, but I'm not putting any faith that these hearings will get him out of office; even though he should be in jail right not considering all the laws he's broken.

Basically, more testimony that that the whole Ukraine scandal was all about Quid Pro Quo, or "bribery" (as Democrats are describing it), to go after Trump's political rivals, and that is pretty much the impression everyone got. And that everyone knew, including Ukraine, that the aid was intentionally held up for that reason. And pretty much every senior official, from Pompeo, Perry, Pence, all knew.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to attack and harass the witnesses in an attempt to vilify and shut them up, while promoting conspiracies of their own against Democrats and the witnesses, while also accusing them of promoting a conspiracy. The other favorite argument by Republicans is to claim no crime was committed, even though the crime was stopped because of people resisting and exposing it. Meanwhile, some of the witnesses are fighting back against Republican attacks.

Well Sense-Offender, I hope you were prepared for 20 pages of EdyKel, like a true Special Counsel thread 2.0!

Unfortunately, it looks like the same situation from where I'm standing. Only this story is called Joe and The Giant Impeachment.

It's Crossfire Hurricane part two. We've got a mysterious whistleblower (red flag), who turns out to be Eric Ciaramella. A 33 year old CIA agent. Funny how we ignore every other whistleblower ever, for the past 10+ years almost but the moment one supposedly has dirt on Trump there's a literal fucking impeachment inquiry and it's all over the world news. Fucking. Transparent. This whole thing is based on presumptions and Eric's opinion of what the phone call was about. Disregard the facts, or that we can read the transcript of this phonecall ourselves.

Ok, it's not like there aren't a million other real things they could get Trump on. Why not look at his ties to Epstein? That was enough to get Prince Andrew out of his royal duties.

https://therealnews.com/stories/trump-most-corrupt-president-us-history

If the Dems were truly honourable, they would attack him on his aid to Saudi Arabia, whom are on our own Human Rights blacklist. That won't happen though because they are equally involved. In fact, lets remind ourself of 1998 when Bill Clinton signed this bill. Which authorises any US President to ask Ukraine for assistance in all matters criminal. Given the US' history with Ukraine and Ukraine's involvement in SpyGate/Crossfire Hurricane events... The whole thing yet again seems like a fabricated attempt to entrap Trump one way or another.

Valid counter-arguments to these hearings include...

1. Zelensky had no idea aid was being withheld at the time of the call.
2. Trump can claim that at the time of the call, Biden was not ‘in the running’, e.g. not a political opponent, whether he thought it likely or not.
3. We all know that ‘Russiagate’ was a pile of crap, involving the vast majority of the US Media, and at least 3 senior ‘Intelligence’ officials, and numerous ‘foreign’ operatives, including UK, Australia, Italy and UKRAINE.
4. The President has executive rights to offer aid on any basis he/she/it wants.

The cynic in me wants to believe they are all just playing a big game and this is a big distraction, much the way Brexit has been used as one in my country. However, on the surface, it seems that the DNC might have genuinely lost the plot now that Hilarion cannot rule humanity.

Ok, I'm not here to defend Trump. I couldn't give two less shits. This is just the complete wrong way to be going about this, if you actually want/expect it to happen. Complete wrong way. I'm not sure if they are just.. that out of touch, or that in charge.

I leave you with a comment that I saw on this article. Despite some spelling and grammatical errors, I thought it to be extremely insightful.

“I posted this 2 days ago, but think Solomon was suckered in while Giuliani and Trump were played. Look, Yovanovich was appointed shortly after Joe Biden got Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired which he bragged about at the Atlantic Council. Politician Yuriy Lutsenko takes his place and Burisma stuff dies out. Lutsenko was also politically assasignated, convicted, and imprisoned some years prior and ex Polish president on board of Burisma with Biden made efforts to help him out and get the conviction overturned befor his pardon. Yovanovich calls for Lutsenko’s ouster in March 2019. Giuliani meets with or spoke to Lutsenko ten times trying to get Ukraine to look at the black book ledger, such meddling prior in US elections to expose Manifort to embarass Trump, etc. Lutsenko claims Yovanovich gave him a list of names not to prosecute, Soros AntiCorruption Action Centre, also including Serhiy Leshchenko who Nellie Ohr testified was one of her Ukrainian sources for the Fusion GPS pissgate dossier the DNC funded, journalists, he also restates no recant. Now Yovanovich testifies under oath to Congress she never gave Lutsenko a do not prosecute list. Basically, one of either Yovanovich or Lutsenko must be lying about the list. Yovanovich has perjured herself if she lied and can go to prison similar to Stone. Lutsenko does not like US ambassador Yovanovich calling for his ouster, wants to get rid of her. Thus he plays Giuliani and says Yovanovich gave him the list. Giuliani conveys this to Trump. Trump fires Yovanovich May 2019, plus later dogs on her in the Zelenski call (people at State Dept, also CIA mole whistleblower Ukraine specialist Eric Ciaramella and others at DI pissed). Lutsenko stiil claims Hunter Biiden broke no Ukrainian laws.

Giuliani and Trump were nicely played by Lutsenko. Lutsenko fired after Zelenski elected. Lutsenko now under investigation in Ukraine for abuse of power. His wife Iryna just relected to parliament resigns this month. It is of course also possible Yovanovich lied instead and is a Clinton stool, but why would she seek to ouster Lutsenko, the guy who ended the Burisma corruption probe? I think ponderance of evidence is

Corrupt bribe me politician Pete Sessions (former R-TX) author of a letter to Pompeo in 2018 to get rid of Yovanovich, was lobbied by Parnas and Fruman from the Ukraine, meeting with them day before his letter, the same pair just arrested for illegal foreign campaign contributions to Sessions, they also worked with Giuliani to get dirt in Ukraine to help Trump and helped him connect to Lutsenko. Rudy was played as opposed to doing the playing.

Parnas could testify to the impeachment committee implicating Trump who he claims knew him, albeit Trump denies knowing him, in addition to his grand jury testimony against Giuliani who under criminal investigation now could be indicted following Cohen’s footsteps. Not good. This could be bigger than the nothing burger Zelenski call for an article of impeachment. Now I know why the Republican controlled Senate is sitting on the sidelines not holding parrellel hearings.

Anyways, Solomon did his homework, but good chance was likely lied to by Lutsenko for political reasons, more Giuliani and Trump were successfully played by Lutsenko to get rid of Yovanovich. Again, why would Yovanovich want to get rid of the prosecutor who was hiding Burisma corruption if she was anti-Trump? There must have also been fury and disatifaction for many at the State Dept after her firing and US Ukraine policy following a political direction, also possibly leading to CIA plant Eric Ciaramella want with help to blow up the issue.

I think Trump shot himself in foot with advice from Giuliani on Ukraine based on Lutsenko, and Solomon, who othewise is a good journalist, just got caught in cross-fire.”

Considering that this was an intentional attack on Trump's biggest political rival, to get a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election, with a meeting and foreign military aid being dangled, I would say that gives Democrats reason enough to hold Trump accountable. It also gives more meat to the Muller investigation on what Trump is capable of.

Except, Ukrainian officials knew about the aid, which wasn't a secret.

Biden was leading in polls in battleground states that Trump won in 2016, and this was in the lead up to Trump's call with Zelensky in July.

And yet, Trump showed that he doesn't mind colluding with a country to help him win elections. Trump is so brazen that he stupidly implicated himself by releasing the transcript of his call with Zelensky. He also openly admitts several he would take the help of a foreign country against his political opponents.

Not when it's an abuse of power to target political opponents of his. It's why people broke from him to tell the public.

The Senate GOP, in an effort to give some credence to Trumps conspiracy argument and to counter the Democrat impeachment narrative, are opening up their own investigation into the Bidens over Ukraine.

And what does this lead you to believe?

Reminder to everyone believing these guys: Conspiracy to commit a crime does not require the conspired-to crime to actually be committed in order to be punishable.

And how do you think this is related to the US, or the impeachment hearings?

Unlikely. It's a bit complicated. Mykola Zlochevsky fled the country the same year the company hired Biden's son, because of growing corruption investigations that were part of the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution in 2014, which saw a lot of the old guard investigated or/and flee the country - including the then pro-Russia, Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed from office and fled to Russia.

The reason the company hired Hunter was to try and create stronger ties(business dealings) to the US in a time when Russia annexed Crimea and was threatening to take over the rest of country, after the Ukrainian revolution.

What Trump's conspiracy centers on is a former Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was fired at the bequest of Joe Biden in 2016 because he was supposedly investigating Burisma. But Viktor Shokin was seen as largely ineffective fighting corruption in Ukraine by both Democrats and Republicans, and other Western nations (and, including his own aids), and was not investigating Burisma at the time - though he did open a probe into Zlochevsky a year or two ealiaer, which didn't seem to go anywhere.

So, whatever Zlochevsky might say, it won't have much to do with Hunter Biden, who was just used as a token to strengthen Burisma's business ties with the US at the height of tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Of course, Zlochevsky might have bribed Shokin not to investigate Burisma, and to go nowhere with his own investigation, but this would only help Biden who wanted his firing.

Seems that Devin Nunes, a ranking Republican on the House intelligence Committee, who has been lambasting the impeachment hearings, apparently went rogue to meet a former Ukraine persecutor in Italy who is at the heart of Trump's conspiracy that claims that Biden fired him because of his investigation into a company that his son worked at. Many are accusing Nunes of trying to go after political dirt to help Trump out, using tax payer money to do it. Nunes, instead of admitting it, despite growing amount of evidence, has decide to use the Trump defense of denial and intimidation, accusing it of a political hit jobs and threatening to sue the media of slandering him.

With Impeachments hearing planning to continue this week many Republicans, with nothing to defend Trump's actions over Ukraine with, have gone into full conspiracy mode, with some promoting Russian talking points over Ukraine. Some even demand that House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment hearings, should testify, while others want Hunter Biden,and Joe Biden, to testify.

Meanwhile, it seems that Devin Nunes, a leading House Republican, who has headed the powerful House oversight committees, is part of the Ukraine scandal with mounting evidence against him, abusing his Congressional power to investigate Ukraine, and Trump's political rivals, Joe Biden. And nothing says guilt these days than trying to sue the media to claim some sort of innocence in the age of Trumpism.

Another day of impeachment hearings. 3 out 4 legal scholars supported it, with the only one not supporting it was a libertarian invited by Republicans. The most memorable was a Stanford law professor, Pamela Karlan, who argued that what Trump did trying to get help from a foreign country against a political rival was against the spirit of the Constitution and the principles of our republic.

Trump keeps digging himself into a deeper hole by still trying to explain why he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden. I don't expect Trump to testify, even in front of the Republican friendly Senate if house Democrats pass impeachment onto him, because he will only implicate himself if he does.

Nancy Pelsoi finally sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate, along with more evidence, but that doesn't seem to matter to Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who plans to start the hearings, while working closely with the Trump admin, to create his own kangaroo court, without any witnesses, and to end it as quickly as possible with a acquittal for Trump. Though, senate Democrats are hoping to get some of the more moderate Republicans to vote with them for witnesses. The Senate hearings are planned to begin next Tuesday.

Who is Lev Parnas? He's the guy who worked closely with Trump's personnel lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to get Ukraine to either investigate the Bidens, or to find dirt on them, in an attempt to help Trump's election chances. He's currently indicted over his role in funneling foreign money to Trump's campaign.

He also indicated in a recent interview that Trump, VP Mike Pence, and even the current Attorney General, William Barr, were all in the loop about getting foreign help in the 2020 election. Both Trump, and Pence, are trying to distance themselves from Parnas by claiming they don't know him, while Parnas keeps releasing photos/videos of them together. .

Meanwhile, Trump is getting new lawyers to help him out in the Senate, ranging from Kennith Star, who's actions led to Clinton to be impeached, to Alan Dershowitz, who got OJ Simpson acquitted, and got Jeffery Epstein out of trouble. What a circus this will be...

So, the people who are going to defend Trump in the upcoming senate impeachment hearings all had the opposite views over Clinton's impeachment trial.

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

• In 1999: “The President would seek to win at any cost,” he said, according to Newsweek. “If it meant lying to the American people. If it meant lying to his Cabinet. The name of the game was winning. Winning at any cost.”
• Today: “I’ve read the summary of the call. If this is the ‘launching point’ for House Democrats’ impeachment process, they’ve already overplayed their hand,” he told Politico last month. “It’s clear there is no quid pro quo that the Democrats were desperately praying for.”

Take Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an outspoken Trump critic turned ally:

• In 1999: “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” he said about Clinton, who faced charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
• Today: “Impeachment over this? What a nothing (non-quid pro quo) burger. Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to President Trump,” he said in a September statement in reaction to a summary the White House released of the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump's lawyers:

Alan Dershowitz's Old Comments About Impeachment Come Back To Haunt Him

• In 1998: “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” Dershowitz said on CNN at the time. “You don’t need a technical crime.”
• Today: "They didn’t want to give Congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power. They have to prove treason, they have to prove bribery or they have to prove other crimes and misdemeanors. ‘Other’ refers to crimes of the kind such as treason and bribery.”

Kennith Starr, who's investigation of Clinton led to the the House to impeach the president, is now defending Trump as one of his lawyers, now takes on a contradictory role, and faces his own past coments and arguments.

It's almost like the current Republicans in power have no morals or consistency, and will do anything they can to maintain power, like lie, cheat, and play dirty, for reasons that are based on a mythology rather than reality.

Kind of like... well, y'know.

It's a far cry from the party who once proclaimed themselves as "law and order", and of "ethical standards", from the time they impeached Clinton. I think all this shows is how they never had any of that stuff, and are only interested in party over country at any cost - defending the indefensible, whether it's over laws or ethical standards.

I think this comic says it all:

It's 12:30 in the morning and this shit's still going on. How much longer are they gonna torture these senators with this farce?

I don't see it tearing your country apart, as some have said . Frankly the majority of people in your country are just too stupid to even grasp what is being charged...& are incapable for the most part of understanding misuse of position, does not necessarily mean that criminal charges have to be laid !

The news on it here in Canada shows a massive failure on the framers of the Constitutions , where they've had the hand to inpart in placing the impeachment in the hands of the Senate.

They set it up , so men (and now women) of upstanding morals and character would work together , with Partisan Political Views set aside to judge if the person who was the head of their country was misusing their position.

Unfortunately you have Senators who's only claim to fame are without morals & who have gone on record saying they will not allow the impeachment to remove Trump regardless , While going on record this week swearing an Oath to examine the charges of misuse of Presidential powers.

These 2 completely different views are impossible at the same time for the same person.

You cannot impartially examine anything , if you have already declared your mind is made up.Taking a vow to be impartial by someone who has made such a declaration is LYING & showing anyone who has payed attention here is a person unworthy of trust or higher office.

. Everything else about this is like a reality gong show, where the participants are mainly all rejects from the clown circus ...& unfortunately are charged with running your country. I'd be appalled & in fact I am, butI'm evermore appalled at the total crap our Provincial & Federal Governments antics here in this country. Luckily at the moment we are in a minority Government and the Party in power has to get at least one of the other 3 big political parties to back them up to move anything into law.

...you mean their job?

The biggest bombshell over the impeachment trial was not from Trump's lawyers, who were bringing up everything from blaming Democrats, and Biden, to trying to make people feel sorry for Trump, but came from an unreleased book manuscript from Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, who Trump publicly humiliated by firing him through a tweet.

Bolton, according to the manuscript, claimed to have a first hand account and that Trump did tie the Ukraine aid to the investigation of his political rival, Joe Biden. This even alarmed many Republican, who know Bolton as being a sharpshooter, even if he aims at your head. He's a very credible witness.

This has increased calls for witnesses, especially for John Bolton to testify, with some Republicans backing it.

I like what Warren did, embarrassing the Republican Chief Justice, John Roberts, over his handling of the Senate impeachment hearings by making him read her question aloud:

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”

He was not pleased.

On the opposite spectrum, Robert refused to read Rand Paul's question on the whistle blower, which tried to out that person. Paul was once a huge supporter of whistle blowers under the Obama administration, but has since taken an opposite stance under Trump.

The senate has voted against allowing witnesses.

Looks like an acquittal is on the horizon.

You know Trial by Combat has never actually been taken off the books he could try that you know.

Wouldn't work. Trump would claim bone spurs again, or something, to get out of it.

Aww you sassy bitch!