Senorman
Well-known Member
We can argue process all day long, and get nowhere.
Fundamental issue at hand: If Trump is innocent as he and his sycophants claim, then Trump should testify, as well as Bolton and Mulvaney. Clear things up, eh?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
We can argue process all day long, and get nowhere.
Fundamental issue at hand: If Trump is innocent as he and his sycophants claim, then Trump should testify, as well as Bolton and Mulvaney. Clear things up, eh?
4Figgy
Member
Nope. There was zero evidence of a crime committed in the House shenanigans. The left can reach as far as they want, but there is nothing there. It’s called Trump derangement syndrome, and yes, it’s real.
Senorman
Well-known Member
Sure, except for this from the House Intelligence Committee:
Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:
I. Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States—acting personally and through his agents within and outside of the U.S. government—solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The President engaged in this course of conduct for the benefit of his reelection, to harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and to influence our nation’s upcoming presidential election to his advantage. In so doing, the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security.
II. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
III. As part of this scheme, President Trump, acting in his official capacity and using his position of public trust, personally and directly requested from the President of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce investigations into (1) the President’s political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden, and (2) a baseless theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. These investigations were intended to harm a potential political opponent of President Trump and benefit the President’s domestic political standing.
IV. President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.
V. President Trump used the power of the Office of the President and exercised his authority over the Executive Branch, including his control of the instruments of the federal government, to apply increasing pressure on the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government to announce the politically-motivated investigations desired by President Trump. Specifically, to advance and promote his scheme, the President withheld official acts of value to Ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by Ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests:
A. President Trump—acting through agents within and outside the U.S. government—conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine desperately sought to demonstrate continued United States support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, on Ukraine publicly announcing the investigations that President Trump believed would aid his reelection campaign.
B. To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought.
C. President Trump’s closest subordinates and advisors within the Executive Branch, including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy J. Richard Perry, and other senior White House and Executive Branch officials had knowledge of, in some cases facilitated and furthered the President’s scheme, and withheld information about the scheme from the Congress and the American public.
VI. In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote, or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the President sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically-motivated investigations lacking legitimate predication that the U.S. government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world. In so doing, the President undermined U.S. policy supporting anti-corruption reform and the rule of law in Ukraine, and undermined U.S. national security.
VII. By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.
VIII. Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.
IX. Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by:
A. refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena;
B. directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees;
C. directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and
D. intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses.
In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.
(CNN) About half of Americans say the Senate should vote to convict President Donald Trump and remove him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial (51%), according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while 45% say the Senate should vote against conviction and removal.
Nearly seven in 10 (69%) say that upcoming trial should feature testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House impeachment inquiry. And as Democrats in the Senate seek to persuade at least four Republican senators to join them on votes over allowing witnesses in the trial, the Republican rank and file are divided on the question: 48% say they want new witnesses, while 44% say they do not.
The poll is the first major national telephone poll since the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, formally launching Trump's trial there. They are also the first such poll results since Soviet-born businessman Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani, publicly implicated the President in the Ukrainian pressure campaign during a series of television interviews.
4Figgy
Member
I actually watched most of the trials (political nerd right here). And yes, your info comes from the Democrats who ran the scam of the century on this impeachment. Why did the dems run the House hearings as they did (almost zero republican witnesses, limited questioning, cutoffs when speaking about things they didn’t want to be heard)? It’s because it’s a sham. My 6 year old knows the difference in fairness better than any of those House dems. Why when asked if any of the witnesses could point to one crime the President committed NOT A SINGLE ONE could answer??? Why did Sondlan (the ONLY witness to speak to Trump) say he wanted no quid pro quo? How did Trump withhold money that Ukraine got without anything in return. How did Hunter Biden get paid for a job he knew nothing about? Yes, Trump told his people to not partake in the hearings because they were shit to begin with. The dems said before Trump was sworn in that they would do anything, including impeachment, to get him out. Funny thing is, he will be re-elected. If you want to believe the “findings” then be my guest, and fall for a bunch of BS.
Senorman
Well-known Member
You are over-complicating this. If what you are saying has any truth, then why not hear from Trump, Mulvaney, and Bolton. They'll be able to clear up any/all "findings" that the Dems claim. Plus, the WH has heaps of documents that they won't release. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, right?
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
That's just not how america works bro. I accuse you of something then tell you to prove your innocence?
Senorman
Well-known Member
As deficits soar, Trump asks, 'Who the hell cares about the budget?'
As Rex Tillerson once put it “what a fucking moron.”
As Rex Tillerson once put it “what a fucking moron.”
Senorman
Well-known Member
Spin, spin all you want. Bring in witnesses.
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
The house was supposed to gather the information to impeach. They didnt because it's all a farce. Now they expect the senate to gather information for them? The senate might do that. But they wont be compelled to based off of the lack of merit the initial inquiry had.
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
I hope they do bring in witnesses. All it will do is prove the house abused their power.
AnTabolic73
Well-known Member
Nonetheless, witnesses or not, the impeachment has no merit. The founders luckily built all these checks and balances. And now it's the Senate's turn to check the house. And put and end to the pelosi schiff show.
