You’re right, it’s time to bring those charges!
I wonder what you call the process by which they bring charges against a duly-elected President… maybe accusement?
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention? Don’t you live in DC??
Dems are trying to stretch “Using office for personal gain” as wide as possible. There’s no such Law, no such Crime. This baseless accusation could be posed against any President. It’s meaningless. It literally doesn’t mean anything. Did Obama “gain personally” through his president? Did Bush “gain personally”? Did Clinton? Did Reagan? Surely, all people “gain” personally by being President. How could you not? It’s a stupid, senseless, meaningless term, with no precedent in Law. No Crime!
“Bribe”? Nope. Coercion? Nope. Quid Pro Quo? Nope!
Trump was/is investigating Crime and Corruption in Ukraine. What did he discover, except Biden corruption, which is what this is all about. Dems, being defensive about their own corruption, try to launch an Impeachment claiming Trump is guilty of WHAT THEY ARE!!!] Democrats are the corrupt mother fuckers, who did shady and slimy business in Ukraine. Hunter Biden NO-SHOW JOB?! On US Taxpayer dollar?! And then claim it’s a crime to investigate this?!
Dems think they are immune from corruption, above the law!
JUSTICE is coming
The question isn’t whether they ‘gained personally’, it’s whether they abused the powers of the office for personal gain.
What do you mean by this? Several witnesses have testified that Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine on the condition that the Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden. Quid = military aid, quo = Biden investigation.
This is implausible. If that were the real motivation, it would have been handled by the Department of Justice, not by the President’s personal attorney (who is not an employee or agent of the United States).
The question still stands.
Also the Liberal-Left-Media is protecting Biden and his corruption, giving his son a no-show work job in Ukraine at taxpayer expense. Sounds like “abuse of power”. I’m sure this accusation could apply to Obama, Bush, Clinton, again, a definition so broad as to be meaningless.
I like how you Liberal-Leftists make it a “crime” to investigate your Liberal-Left leaders (Biden/Obama/Clinton).
It’s also why the Media establishment is completely silent about Bill Clinton and Epstein’s Lolita Express. This is how corrupt you and they are. It’s “illegal” to bring down your corruption.
Quite frankly Trump did nothing wrong, he knows it, and more and more Americans know it with every passing day. Trump was Right(eous) to go looking into the Ukraine corruption. What did he find, except Biden, and Dem corruption?! Then this impeachment sham, is an attempt to coverup that corruption, with more corruption (false allegations, attempting a coup).
DOJ is corrupt too. Trump knows how deep the swamp is, and has to take matters into his own hands. That’s another reason he was voted in. He is outside the Establishment. He is Anti-Establishment. He is exactly what America wanted, exactly what is needed, and he knows the levels of corruption, because he’s paid-off plenty of politicians during his business career. Guliani also has a history of taking down Mob bosses (corruption).
So the shoe fits.
Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden, on the other hand, he has no excuse. It’s good that the underbelly of the Far-Liberal-Left and Democrat-Sham party, corruption, is all coming to light. Dems are desperate, hence their Hail Mary throw to impeach and silence the President. But there’s no receiver.
I hope Dems are voted out of office 2020 and 2022, full Republican-Right-Conservative government, House Republican control, Senate Republican control, Supreme Court lean Right, President Trump, sounds like a Trifecta!
Will you even have a job then, Careleas? Or are you down the line to be Fired too? You’re Fired! That’s why the people Hired him, Voted him, into office.
Two things:
- “Maybe Obama did it too” is a boring question. Make a specific allegation and show your evidence.
- Assume every president to now has done what Trump is accused of doing – are you saying that they were all OK, or are you saying that they should all have been removed (including Trump)?
This is non-responsive. You said there was no quid pro quo, I gave you the quid and the quo. Reconcile those things.
Whether or not that’s true, ours is a government of laws. Trump isn’t king, he’s the head of the executive in a democracy, whose powers are explicit and limited and flow from the Constitution and laws written by Congress. If he senses corruption, his job is to clean house, not to employ mercenaries because he doesn’t trust the employees of the executive branch.
Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn’t vote.
Evidence? Who needs evidence, these days? Certainly not the Democratic party!
All we need now, set by this precedent, is blind-hatred and throwing accusations. Due Process, not required.
It’s not a Quid Pro Quo when you investigate corruption (of Biden and DNC).
It’s very much accidental. Trump wanted to ensure Ukraine wasn’t corrupt; instead he found Biden by circumstance.
Ukraine corruption revealed/reveals Democrat corruption. Democrats respond by trying to impeach, to cover their tracks. Too late!
Law?! What law? There is no law against “abuse of power”. It doesn’t make sense. In order for there to be laws, there must be Crimes for breaking them.
Democratic Impeachment proves Lawlessness. They maybe “entitled” to do so, according to the rules. But trying to impeach a duly-elected President, without merit, without evidence, without proof, without charging a crime (Real Law), is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST.
As was recently mentioned, this week, Congress (Democrats) are abusing their power. Completely SHAM impeachment, absolutely Partisan, polarizing, divisive. The Democrats are responsible for dividing the nation, not Trump, not anybody else.
304 – 227
Not even close. Try again.
This is a tu quoque fallacy. Regardless of what the Democratic party does, you have not presented evidence.
It seems like you’re trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you’re claiming there was no quid pro quo; on the other, you’re claiming that Trump was trying to make a deal (i.e. a quid pro quo) to fight corruption. Put differently, you’re arguing both that he didn’t do it, and that he did it with the best of intentions.
The power of the Presidency is circumscribed by law. The President only has that authority given to the position by the Constitution, the largest part of with is in executing the laws as passed by the Legislature. The President’s authority is limited by the set of laws he’s charged with executing.
So, when you ask, “Law? What law?”, the burden is on the President and his defenders to point to a law that permits him to hire a personal attorney to conduct state affairs, as opposed to using the apparatus that the Legislature has provided for him.
Are you under the impression that a total of 531 people voted in the 2016 election?
No testimony, no fact, that there is “Quid Pro Quo”, just flawed interpretation, based on Democratic hatred and emotion. That’s called “reading into it whatever you want”. No aide withheld. And, based on the charges, it wouldn’t matter whether aide was released, or not, because you setup and Framed the President, to be in a lose-lose, guilty-guilty postion. Damned if he did release Aide, damned if he didn’t. Plenty of fallacies in your argument and positions there.
The point is, Congress is abusing power and acting above the Law. You can’t impeach a President for nothing, because you don’t like him, because of emotion/hatred. Well, you can try, and you will go down hard. Because the Constitution is on the President’s side, along with the Supreme Court. It’s going to be excellent watching the Whistleblower-Leaker become exposed in the Senate, Shift brought to testify, Biden brought to testify, Burisma investigated, Biden and son investigated, Democratic corruption investigated, exposed, and Democrats deposed from power for 20 years to come. All Republican-Conservative House, Executive, Supreme Court, then the nation can move forward unobstructed. This is what happens when you play with fire and lose.
It’s called the Electoral College. Democrats need to figure-out it works.
Irony:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkcz9pSikmY[/youtube]
Describe, in specific, what Trump was doing to “ensure Ukraine wasn’t corrupt”. As far as I can tell, the only theory of the case that includes Trump acting to eliminate corruption has Trump withholding military aide in order to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden. That is a quid pro quo.
So either there was no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide, or there was no attempt to deal with corruption in the Ukraine. Not both.
…right. And electoral votes are different from the popular vote, yes? And if we’re talking about “the people”, we care about the popular vote, not the Electoral College. And if we look at the popular vote, it’s clear that “Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn’t vote.”
The liberal mindset is insane. Where in the call is it implied or even remotely suggested that “investigate Biden OR ELSE?!”
Nowhere. Trump is perfectly within his Right to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption, foreign and domestic. If Biden is corrupt, then the request is completely legitimate. And he is. Quid Pro Quo Joe and his Son, nice no-show job in Ukraine at Burisma, under the Obama administration, admitted on video. THAT’s the corruption and Quid Pro Quo, for Joe.
…right. And electoral votes are different from the popular vote, yes? And if we’re talking about “the people”, we care about the popular vote, not the Electoral College. And if we look at the popular vote, it’s clear that “Most people who voted voted for someone else, and almost half the population didn’t vote.”
[/quote]
Popular Vote is meaningless, literally doesn’t mean anything.
Electoral College is setup so Presidential candidates don’t spend 100% of their time in California and New York.
Even you should know that.
Race is still important and this will become abundantly clear as more white people begin to notice there’s a whole lot less of us out there in existence becoming the new population minority. Marxism didn’t have any influence on national socialism or fascism from what I can see.
you do not understand what the master of cynical negation si telling you.
I can…;cause I’m brilliant. He taught me to declare what I want others to believe of me.
Well, him and this entire forum of geniuses.
He’s telling you it was determined that black be blacks and whites be white…and you cannot blame them for what the universe - a.k.a. god - made them to be.
Might s well hate a mosquito for annoying you at night.
It’s all determined and we are manifestations of what has been determined and will forever live the exact lives it has been determined that we live.
So, except for the fucking police and those damn judges, we cannot blame anyone. All are innocent victims of circumstances.
I exposed my cock, yesterday, to an old lady…as it was determined that I do…and she did not call the police but called me over. It’s fate.
I had no part in any of it…even as she pleasured me to a happy ending, in the backroom of a bookstore.
I thank the absolute universe for that gift.
- We don’t have a transcript, because the White House refuses to provide a transcript that they insist contains nothing worth hiding.
- This happened over months. Military aid was withheld at least as early as July 3.
I find the people saying this also put a lot of weight on the notion that “the people” elected Trump. It’s true that the system elected Trump, but most people who voted voted for someone else.
Pretty weak arguments…
The Senate comes next, I look forward to this “whistleblower” being exposed and Biden’s investigated.
How did that get into your bubble of belief?
And there is a damn good reason for that to be the law.
Not as weak as the rebuttal 
- Irregularities in the released transcript, together with testimony of others on the call, show that we don’t have an actual transcript.
- Mulvaney said they have tapes from which the transcript was produced.
Whether or not it’s a good policy, its pedantically the case that winning the Electoral College and winning the popular vote are different things, and if you appeal to the will of the people, you expose yourself to pedants like me pointing out that, wellactually, the people mostly preferred someone else.
The Electoral Collage is the Will of the People. Popular vote would appeal to California-Los Angeles-San Francisco-New York only; because those are the concentrations of population. This is common-sense; even elementary school children can understand this. President Trump was duly elected, with overwhelming majority. Now the UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST matter is Abuse of Power of the House Majority DNC, trying to impeach a duly-elected President without cause and committed no crime. No bribery. No “Quid Pro Quo”. And trying to investigate Trump for a crime that DNC, Joe Biden did in Ukraine, Ukraine and US CORRUPTION, gifting his son a No-Show job worth millions, with an admitted Quid Pro Quo on video.
Trump is being punished, for DNC and Biden corruption. At least, come the Senate, this FAKE-whistleblower will be exposed. The accusations dissolved. The smear campaign halted. NO crime committed. NO reason for impeachment.
Abuse of Power by DNC and House Majority. Corruption within the Democrat Party. Corruption by Adam Schiff and Nadler.
The whole “basis” of this impeachment is an Anonymous Witness, and if the American people want to know, we are SILENCED and our First Amendment is violated. This is a violation of Free Speech.
It wasn’t proposed as a literal transcript but rather a “memorandum of conversation” or “memcon” because the staffers translating from foreign languages must write out the substantive intent of each sentence in order to avoid misrepresentation from word-by-word translations. Even when they are writing out the English, in English, they still, using the same thinking - write out the substantive intent without worrying about precise wording, perhaps even improve the wording. That practice, used throughout the West among heads of state and international corporations, has been testified to by professionals and not contested.
Biased interpretation of the results of such a wide spread and historical practice allows for suspicion to signal maleficence when there is none. The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary. People with prejudice were just alarmed because they had assumed a literal word for word transcript when such isn’t the practice with any foreign language memorandum of conversation.
Equally people with prejudice sounded alarm over the length of the conversation record before considering the fact that every sentence was being spoken twice, once in each language.
Presumption and suspicion used to promote false narratives. Not the first. Not the last.
Not actually. What he said was, "Let me ask you this: If we wanted to cover this up, would we have called the Department of Justice almost immediately and have them look at the transcript of the tape?”
Again with prejudice, it is easy to take his word “tape” to mean a literal taping. People got in the habit of using the word “tape” when referring to any record of conversation. It is my understanding that electronic recording is used for sake of the translators but immediately overwritten after the memcon is checked. The memoranda are then locked away.
Also prejudice led the the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s directive to secure the memcons was nefarious. In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).
Again, presumption and suspicion used to promote false narratives. Not the first. Not the last.
Encouraging disrespect for Mr. Trump from his own subordinates has been an ongoing endeavor from the CIA and deep state’s resistance from 2016. From such spawned disrespect, leaking of damaging inferences, suspicions, betrayals, and even leaking classified information is inspired and acquired by undercover operatives and – observers.
Okay but if you want to be a pedant, then you must consider exactly who “the people” really are. Your presumptive conclusion will be different.
Given a race variation of 50 whites and 10 blacks, who are “the people”? The majority?
The US is outstanding in many ways. One of them is that their constitution protects minorities of quite a variety. One of the intentionally overlooked minorities in the nation are the rural, non-urbanites versus the densely populated urbanites.
The US has States that are largely farmers and other states that are largely urbanite socialists. Farmers require representation in government as much as, if not more than, urbanites. They have very different needs. Socialist cities (Los Angles, New York,…) depend upon high population density because they thrive off the contention between other people - money and lawyers. The highest population will always be in the larger urban cities.
But does that mean that the socialist urbanites should totally rule over the farmers? Making them slaves to the socialists? No more so than those 50 whites should totally dominate those 10 blacks.
The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.
obsrvr…
You know what else is a false narrative? That there are more urbanites than rural people. Direct democracy actually gives the rurals MORE power, it’s just that people don’t fucking vote…
This is a really long discussion if you get into me about this… I’m just noting YOUR false narrative!
I don’t think this is so, though this is related to the point you make throughout your post about biased interpretations. The Democrats didn’t need the removed language to believe what they believe, because they see the rest as sufficient. The Republicans see references to Biden and Burisma as legitimate in the context of routing out international corruption. But in Bayesian terms, more discussion of Biden/Burisma (and the decision to remove those references over the protest of some people on the call) should cause us to update our priors about the President’s motives on the call.
This is at odds with the Administration’s own explanation of how it ended up in a secure server, which claimed that it was put there by mistake, i.e. it did not belong there. It could not have been both normal practice and a mistake.
Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won’t engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that “most people who voted voted for someone else”.
We finally have the Articles of Impeachment. These match my expectation: they’re short and easy for the average voter to understand, they don’t touch actual policy decisions, and the accused conduct is problematic enough that they justify removing a President. They’ll go to Senate, Trump will be acquitted, and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.
I think it’s a good play, though they elide Trump’s worst sins.