|
|
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Trump's Impeachment (Or the Democrats Nothing Burger)!The Senate threatened to throw out the Impeachment altogether if they (the Democrats) didn't finally got the show on the road! Though none of the charges for Impeachment are in the Constitution, the Democrats insist they want more time than what the Senate is allowing, I have to wonder how much time do you have to have to outline the TWO articles that they want to present?!! The charade continues . . . |
|||||||
|
News Reports . . . "Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards" thehill.com "Democrats' partisan impeachment violates the US Constitution" www.washingtonexaminer.com Thank God rule of law still protects the innocent until PROVEN guilty. |
|||||||
|
Ihs No matter what they conclude, this ‘trial’ will always be a laughing stock. The judges swear not to be impartial and refuse to allow evidence. Hah! WTH kind of way is that to convince people it’s a “nothing 🍔?” Right. |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 22-Jan-20, 20:50 |
The evidence for QPQ is 100% clear based on the witness hearings, and could not actually be any clearer. The most stupid thing in my opinion is not the denial of this, but the fact that the democrats don't seem to understand it themselves and to focus tightly on that evidence. Instead, there is rumbling on other vaguely related issues, and political rhetoric, all of which just dilutes the clear raw evidence. It is another matter that having established the QPQ the real question that should be debated or weighed against Law is whether it was a crime or a misdemeanor implied by the Constitution to warrant impeachment. If this had occurred the impeachment procedure would not have been the farce it is now. |
|||||||
|
Stal |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 23-Jan-20, 22:26 |
Some of the evidence for quid pro quo www.youtube.com Can it be much clearer? |
|||||||
|
Could It Be The Obama's State Dept Skeletons? Digging a little more info on this subject and I find out Obama's State Dept may very well have been the start of the "Russian Collision" hoax back in 2016 I'm sure President Trump is aware of this as well! "How the Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost" As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency, the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia’s most critical neighbor. The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ). “It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media during the 2016 election,” he said. That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama administration’s intervention. thehill.com "Obama & Biden Under Formal Investigation For Corruption In Ukraine Says Paul Sperry" Investigative reporter Paul Sperry has announced that at least three Senate committees are formally investigating Obama-Biden-Ukrainian collusion to damage Donald Trump’s chances to win the 2016 presidential election. While we can continue to hope this time will be different, the most likely scenario is that these committees will amount to little more than political grandstanding used to score points with the Republican base. Republicans will leave just enough doubt on the table so that Democrats can claim absolution, as well. Something along the lines of, “I’m the most investigated politician ever,” ala Hillary Clinton. Was any politician held accountable for Benghazi? The IRS scandal? Fast and Furious? Like you, Patriot Crier remains hopeful that this time these committees will actually generate criminal referrals but we can’t help but feel that what this really amounts to are the adults in the Senate sending a message to Pelosi not to waste their time with impeachment. illicitinfo.com |
|||||||
|
Mo I appreciate your arguement, Professor, but you seemed to be arguing your premise before the egg dropped, because the Democrats still had 3-days to present their case when you attempted to argue their (our) sanity and "vague understanding of the issues" etc. --- Is that the Scientific way? Mo |
|||||||
|
IHS Anything's possible, I suppose, but I'm highly suspicious of your accuracy here, Ace. |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Jan-20, 23:36 |
Stalhandske asks, "Can it be much clearer?"> Duhhh! My question was about an entirely different issue. Nice move to take away attention from it! |
|||||||
|
pawntificator 25-Jan-20, 13:26 |
|
|||||||
|
<< Some of the evidence for quid pro quo >> But regardless, if it is pertinent information on this issue WHY aren't the Democrats using it?! The second video, also, has been discredited by cross examination by the Republicans, hasn't it? Most telling is how the Ukrainian president knew nothing about this so-called Quid Pro Quo, until it's published on Political. Very suspicious that. Also, all this preponderance of evidence that the Democrats say they have - where is it? "Democrats Have Failed to Prove Their Case Against Trump" Republicans are still waiting for a convincing case that the president was acting to advance his own personal interests. DECEMBER 12, 2019 www.theatlantic.com "'Nobody Pushed Me.' Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son" Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sat beside President Donald Trump on Wednesday as he denied that Trump pressured him to investigate former Vice President and current 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son for his work in the country. The two leaders held a meeting at the U.N. one day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump following reports of the President’s phone call with Zelensky in July. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Zelensky declared that he had not been pressured during the July phone call, and insisted that he does not want to interfere in a foreign election. time.com "Trump Didn’t Pressure Ukraine to Probe Biden, Transcript Shows" Department of Justice determined president did not violate campaign finance law with request to probe potential corruption President Donald Trump didn’t exert pressure or offer anything in exchange when he asked Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to probe the dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, according to a transcript of a call between the two leaders released by the White House on Sept. 25. m.theepochtimes.com The NeverThrumpers leading this second witch hunt fail to understand President Trump's question to Zelensky about the corruption investigation concerning Burisma is perfectly in order and shows Trump's concern about America's dealing with a country which has a problem with corruption. Especially as it appears to have been there when the DNC first bribed Ukrainian officials which was why we have the Trump Russian Collision story. "Ukraine Officials Allege Major Corruption Scandal With DNC Linked Company" And the plot thickens. While Democrats fill the American airwaves with a razor-thin impeachment storyline, Ukrainian members of parliament have gone public with a tale of large-scale corruption involving a U.S. company with ties to the Democratic Party. And they are calling on President Trump to investigate. Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Dubinsky asserted that the family of former president Victor Yanukovych “illegally obtained $7.4 billion and laundered the funds through an investment fund close to some representatives of the U.S. Democratic Party in the form of external government loan bonds,” according to the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency. The MPs say the money-laundering scheme is connected to Franklin Templeton Investments, which, in turn, is linked with high-level Democrats. More on that later, but first let’s follow the money. In 2013, Franklin Templeton started sinking big bucks into the Ukrainian debt market to the tune of $5 billion. Later, another $2 billion or so was added to the pot by the U.S. money management firm. Just last week, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) launched an investigation into Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — in essence, putting him on Ukraine’s most wanted list. And that, say Ukraine’s MPs, ties directly into the Templeton scandal. Details of the plan were uncovered by investigative journalists, according to government officials there. Here’s where it gets interesting: The indictment by the PGO against Zlochevsky implicates Hunter Biden and his associates. According to one MP, the $16.5 million Biden’s company received wasn’t for services rendered but rather through a money-laundering scheme or as he put it from “money stolen from citizens” of Ukraine. Thus, Biden-the-younger appears to be a link in the chain of Zlochevsky’s financial pyramid scheme, according to MP Oleksandr Dubinsky. www.libertynation.com Dog a little more, and the road leads back to the DNC! |
|||||||
|
Someone Else Is Digging Deeper! Confirmation of my assertions above, and substaniates the lying fake Mainstream Media. |
|||||||
|
US politic : consternating This is very worrying for democracy. |
|||||||
|
Only For The Guilty! For at least the last 8 years the DNC have been running roughshod through and over the American rule of law. When Obama was in the White House he initiated illegal surveillance on American citizens who he believed could be a threat to Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency. A few days ago the "suicide" of the lead FBI agent who was finding out about the State Dept funneling billions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation was found dead. This is a direct result of the corruption which went on during the Obama Administration. The promise by President Trump to "drain the swamp" will be realized. Just like all of his other promises. I'm sure the guilty are scared beyond their wits. The Guantanamo prison has been undergoing renovations in advance of these coming convictions, sir. |
|||||||
|
Impeachment Charade is . . . youtu.be |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 25-Jan-20, 23:01 |
to confuse the real thing. I urge anyone truly interested in what really occurred to carefully listen to the witness statements (under oath) from David Holmes, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, and liutenant colonel Alexander Vindman. They are all readily available on the Internet. But I am pretty sure nobody here favouring Trump would do that, and certain that if they do they would admit to fact. Ambassador Sondland (R), for example, testifies directly that there was a quid pro quo, and Dr. Hill makes it clear that this was well known among officials around Trump. Still some people here have the gut to tell otherwise and even say that Sondland had denied QPQ. Sen. Mitch McConnel's 30 min speech after the House made the impeachment decision was very eloquent, but it never addressed the key issue. The House Democrats are largely guilty of that because they completely failed to focus clearly on the issue that the Senate should decide about - whether it was something impeachable or not. |
|||||||
|
Stal As for Vindman, he has been shown to be a vocal left wing political activist and was even reprimanded for it back in 2012. This is why I've reserved judgement until both sides have their say rather than jumping on a bandwagon driven by partisans. After 3 years of partisan intrigue, it took the defense only 2 hours to shred it with fact and evidence. Now what? Double down? |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 00:31 |
thumper I don't know what you are talking about. Just listen to this....only a couple of minutes! www.youtube.com |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 00:38 |
thumper I have jumped on no bandwagon. You disqualify Col. Vindman on him being "a left wing political activist", which I will look into. You completely fail to acknowledge the evidence I just posted about Sondman, because you choose not to consider it. Likewise, you ignore the evidence by Dr Fiona Hill and Mr. David Holmes, both of which are completely consistent with Sondman's evidence. On the basis of this (and being neither Dem nor Rep) I would call your behaviour strongly partisan, not objective. |
|||||||
|
pawntificator 26-Jan-20, 00:47 |
gameknot.com It was two months ago. Is it possible that you have been operating for the last two months on the belief that Sondland didn't say this? www.youtube.com |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 00:50 |
thumper twitter.com If it is, I will have to say that I am deeply shocked, though not about Vindman |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 01:09 |
Deleted by stalhandske on 26-Jan-20, 01:13.
|
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 01:13 |
Isityoustand First, that part of the hearing was included in the work I've done. Your citation starts the interview at a "suitable" point, where Sondland explains what the President told him on 9th September! To really show the readers how IIU and apparently Thumper, too, try to hide the truth and facts, please do listen to that link posted by IIU...... FROM ITS BEGINNING!! Then, if you like, you can listen to Sondland's own words in the beginning of the same hearing (it is short) here www.youtube.com When you've done this, dear club member, please let me know who is honest and who is not! |
|||||||
|
Stal First check out the Schiff skit starting at about 18:55. This is how he 'paraphrases' Trump. This is how he (they) heard what Trump said. They hear what they want to hear, not what was actually said. Now check the following timeframes: At 34:09 Lt. Gen Kellogg who was on 'the call' says no QPQ. At 35:55 - 37:06 Fmr. Natl. Security Council Timothy Morrison who was also on 'the call' says no demands made, no QPQ. At 51:28 - 52:10 Amb. Sondland himself admits that his comments were just "My personal presumption." "It was speculation, guesswork on my part." And finally admits that "No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything." No QPQ |
|||||||
|
Stal |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 01:50 |
Thumper Just to clarify, I am not holding to these absolute facts because I think the President should be impeached. In that I fully agree with Ambassador Sondland. But I think that you are not quite honest with your opinion, but choose parts of the interviews that seem to fit and leave out others. Also, you choose to believe malicious twitters about some of the witnesses, in this case the decorated Col. Vindman. |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 02:02 |
Thumper I think this is obvious, and I am pretty sure you understand it, too. In one he reflected the impression he got from a large number of events, including the phone call partially overheard by witness Holmes, and supported by the evidence from Dr. Hill. In the other, he honestly repeated what the President had told him on his direct request on September 9th. I am pretty certain based on all this that by September 9th President Trump had realised that the QPQ tactics was unlawful, so he withdrew from it. And indeed, the visit, the payent were all realised without an official promise of the Ukrainian president to conduct an investigation. So whatever is said by the democrats, not even a misdemeanor was completed! But what I resent is the dishonesty (also) on the Trump side. |
|||||||
|
Stal From my perspective I really don't care about any supposed QPQ. Like I've said before, it's a tempest in a tea cup. In politics that happens almost daily. To claim otherwise is just being disingenuous at best. If Trump committed a crime then cite the crime and lets move on with it. Everything else is just posturing and bluster. |
|||||||
|
stalhandske 26-Jan-20, 03:36 |
thumper We debated about QPQ and the evidence for vs against. You have not been honest about that but only cited "against", no comment on the "for", or ignoring it altogether. I don't think it was a tempest in a tea cup when it became clear what Trump was up to. He then changed his mind, and the Dems should have backed off because it then became a farce. |
|||||||
| ||||||||
