Convinced yet?

[abelcainsbrother]

This impeachment inquiry pushed by the Democrats in the House is falling apart and is not going like they planned at all.But they are not going to give up yet.They have moved away from "quid quo pro" because it was not resonnating enough to sound criminal to the word "bribery" now.This is how you know there is no evidence or facts.But they cannot impeach the President without evidence of an impeachable offense,no matter how much they lie and try to make up an "imaginary" crime. You have to produce evidence and not just spew propaganda.The woman who testified today is just a disgruntled former employee who did not like President Trump's foreign policy decisions and evidently performed poorly in her job.Obama fired everyone of the Abassadors Bush Jr had appointed in 08 after he was elected and yet not a word of it on the MSM and they were disgruntled employees too.Trump only fired her. The President tweeted out a mean tweet that was mean to Schiff and threatening and offensive to her. Big deal! Go to H.R about it.Why are you even here? She admits she knows of nothing Trump did that was bribery as the Democrats now accuse Trump of. Here is the actual tweet from POTUS

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovich went turned bad.She started off in Samalia,how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably of her in my second phone call with him.It is a US President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors.....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The US now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy,much different than preceeding administrations.It is called,quite simply,America First! With all of that,however,I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O."

Witness intimidation? Really? He is talking about her job performance.

The fact is that we now know Trump and his team prepared this trap for this impeachment long before it even got started and they led the Democrats down this path in order to allow everybody to see themselves how much of a sham this is and now everybody can see it for themselves.They can see how rotten the Democrats are themselves.Sun Tzu - The art of war - "When you are strong act like you are weak and when you're weak act like you're strong." Sun Tzu- "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting" and also "Why interfere with an enemy when they are destroying themselves?" Sun Tzu - The art of war, Donald Trump - The art of the deal. Sun Tzu "The art of war" vs Saul Alinsky "The rules for radicals"

[Philip]

Rick: Abe,

The fact is that the video that you posted, attempts to portray a spoof video, as proof that Obama says he was born in Kenya.

In other words, they used fake information.

In other words, they attempted to portray Obama as saying something that he never said.

In other words, they used deception, to try to back their argument.

In other words, they lied.


They cannot be trusted.

Abe, you need to address what Rick is revealing here! You are trusting people who have proven to be untrustworthy!

[Ged]

They have moved away from "quid quo pro" because it was not resonnating enough to sound criminal to the word "bribery" now.This is how you know there is no evidence or facts.

I just had a vision of Donald Trump, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, sitting around a little wooden table together, eating bread and water.

[DBowling]

They have moved away from "quid quo pro" because it was not resonnating enough to sound criminal to the word "bribery" now.

That's because "quid pro quo" (this for that) in and of itself is not a crime.

Quid pro quo becomes a crime (such as extortion or bribery) when it is used for the purpose of compelling someone to do something illegal. For example compelling a foreign entity to illegally interfere in a US election.

[edwardmurphy]

They have moved away from "quid quo pro" because it was not resonnating enough to sound criminal to the word "bribery" now.This is how you know there is no evidence or facts.

I'll break it down for you, by which I mean for any rational people who might happen to read this:

extortion

noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

bribe

verb
persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

high crimes

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Nobody "moved away" from quid quo pro. There was a quid pro quo, but it only becomes important when placed in proper context.

Trump withheld vital military aid that Congress had set aside for Ukraine, an American ally currently involved in a shooting war with Russian-backed separatists. Trump said that Ukraine could have their aid if they did something for him. Not for us. For him. He also sweetened the pot by offering up a White House visit, which would be an important show of support for, again, an ally involved in a shooting war with separatists supported by the hostile foreign power that is even now trying to spread chaos in our country.

Republicans used to feel pretty strongly about such things. Then Russia helped Trump beat Clinton and suddenly the American right is a bunch of russophiles. It's a strange world we live in.

Anyway, withholding the needed aid until he was granted a personal favor was extortion. Sweetening the pot with the White House visit was a bribe attempt. Had Trump received the announcements that he requested from Zelensky that would have been a campaign finance violation, but I'm pretty sure that soliciting donations that violate campaign finance laws is also illegal. The extortion, bribery, and campaign finance violations all related to the quid pro quo. All of those things were also high crimes, since Trump would not have been able to use the Ukrainian aid money or the White House visit - neither of which belonged to him - in order to secure a personal favors if he wasn't the President. Putting his personal political ambitions ahead of our national security is a gross violation of his oath of office.

And no, the fact that Trump didn't actually get his announcement or that the aid was released after the extortion attempt was uncovered do not change anything. An armed robber would not be innocent if it turned out that his intended victim had no cash on hand. The attempt is enough.

[Byblos]

Could somebody please look up what Obama did (or didn't do) for our Ukranian allies during his tenure? I would do it but I'm afraid I'd be accused of trumpist bias.

[RickD]

Could somebody please look up what Obama did (or didn't do) for our Ukranian allies during his tenure? I would do it but I'm afraid I'd be accused of trumpist bias.

What's the point? To those who see only Trump as doing wrong, it's useless to point out that other presidents have done "illegal" things.

It basically boils down to the fact that those that don't think Trump will lose the next election, will do anything possible to get him out of office another way. In other words, if you can't beat him, impeach him.

[DBowling]

It basically boils down to the fact that those that don't think Trump will lose the next election, will do anything possible to get him out of office another way. In other words, if you can't beat him, impeach him.

I don't think anyone (even the Democrats) think the Senate will remove Trump from office.
But I do think that it is important for our country (and the office of the President) that the US President has to abide by the same laws that everyone else in the country does. And I think being impeached (even though he will not be removed from office) sends a strong message that the President is not above the laws of our country, and that there are consequences for corruption and illegal behavior even if you are the President of the US.

I've also said any number of times that I think it is important that the American people have the opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement in 2020 to reject the corrupt and criminal behavior of Donald Trump.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
I've also said any number of times that I think it is important that the American people have the opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement in 2020 to reject the corrupt and criminal behavior of Donald Trump.

Just curious, how many presidents did not break any laws while in office?

[Philip]

DB: I've also said any number of times that I think it is important that the American people have the opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement in 2020 to reject the corrupt and criminal behavior of Donald Trump.

By doing what, exactly, DB???!!! Voting for one from the far-left, socialist crowd? I see not one of those that is any good! What is the alternative? Now, if we had a good conservative in place that has a good chance of winning, I could understand - and would be for it. But the mentality that ANYONE from the socialist / radical left is better than what we have in place now - seriously, that is not keeping one's eye on the MUCH bigger picture, per policies and court picks. I will not throw my vote away for someone obscure who hasn't a chance. And that is (currently) probably the picture for all the possible conservatives - certainly with only one year to go before the election. Most people who hate Trump as bad as you do is because they personally find him crass, crude, juvenile, and petty - and he IS all of those things. But what I see amongst all of those trying to topple him represent a very scary future for our country.

[RickD]

By voting for Evan McMuffin, DBowling was hoping to inherit his own planet, and get a pair of magic underwear.

[DBowling]

DB: I've also said any number of times that I think it is important that the American people have the opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement in 2020 to reject the corrupt and criminal behavior of Donald Trump.

By doing what, exactly, DB???!!! Voting for one from the far-left, socialist crowd? I see not one of those that is any good! What is the alternative?

There is no good alternative here.

I consider myself a Lincoln/Reagan Republican.
But if the current Republican party continues to openly and brazenly collude with a corrupt criminal at the head of the party, then IMHO something drastic needs to happen to the Republicans to get them to realize that they need to "drain their own swamp" first.
And if it takes a loss of historic proportions in 2020 to get the Republicans to purge themselves of Trump's corruption, then it will be painful, but IMHO necessary for the future to clean up the Republican party.

Now I will repeat again that Trump has done a number of things that have been good for our country and that I support. But so did Nixon and so did Clinton. And just because a President takes some actions that I support, that does not mean that I (or the country) should just overlook and dismiss corrupt and criminal behavior.
And the record is out there for everyone to see... Trump University, Trump Foundation, admitted sexual assaults on a hot mic, the Mueller Investigation, Ukraine, and the list goes on. This is not a one time thing. This is a consistent pattern of corrupt criminal behavior

Most people who hate Trump as bad as you do is because they personally find him crass, crude, juvenile, and petty - and he IS all of those things.

I have lived on this planet long enough to learn to deal with crass, crude, juvenile, petty, and even immoral... But Trump's behavior crosses a line to corrupt and criminal.
The President is not above the Law, and the apparent willingness of the current Republican party (the former party of law and order) to openly collude with Trump's corrupt criminal behavior demonstrates how far Trump's corruption has spread throughout the Republican Party as a whole.

I really really would like to support a political party that reflects at least some of my conservative moral and political values, but I cannot support a party that is openly colluding with a corrupt criminal.

stepping off soapbox...

[RickD]

DBowling,

Could you point me to your posts about Obama, when he broke the law at least 75 times?
https://outline.com/Eb8GrV

I'm trying to find some kind of consistency, but it looks like you just have an agenda against Trump.

[DBowling]

DBowling,
Could you point me to your posts about Obama,

I joined the boards here near the end of the Obama presidency.
I never supported or voted for Obama, and there are other topics on this board that are more meaningful to me than politics.
However I do believe that I did post a number of times about one Obama topic. That was the birther lie that Obama wasn't born in the US. And that had more to do with the factual accuracy of the people who were perpetuating that lie.

I'm trying to find some kind of consistency.

Then I'd recommend reading my posts again. I believe I've been very consistent.

but it looks like you just have an agenda against Trump.

I think a more accurate term would be I have a factually based data driven opinion about Trump.

[Philip]

DB: And if it takes a loss of historic proportions in 2020 to get the Republicans to purge themselves of Trump's corruption, then it will be painful, but IMHO necessary for the future to clean up the Republican party.

ALL Republicans are not corrupt, and you know it! And the party has been put in a bad spot - it's between Trump's faults and the nightmare the other side represents. If they torpedo Trump a year out from the 2020 election - that would be exceptionally irresponsible without an excellent alternative candidate at the ready. And this they do not have! And we have Trump because the Republicans only fielded weak presidential candidates who failed to address things people are really upset over. They all tried to play nice, as if that was going to distinguish them in comparison. Trump tapped into what people were thinking - even if he did so manipulatively or whatever. But the Republicans, nationally, needed to grow a pair. If that is all they take away from the Trump era, that's a good thing.

But to suggest such a nightmare would be worth it just to get rid of Trump and those who fail to criticize or rein him in - well, it's staggering to think any conservative would support THAT! Even if it just comes down to the difference in judges Trump would put forth as opposed to the Democrats if they controlled the White House - that alone is enough to see what foolishness it would be to bring Trump down now. And if one's idea of taking the moral high ground would lead to many terrible things impacting society - my gosh, how irresponsible would that be! And BTW, at the most, Trump's only going to be around one more term. People need to be realistic as to what can be done politically now. This idea that we discombobulate the Republican Party and that it would lead to something much better with it - that's completely delusional thinking, given the political realities and how power is wielded. I mean, there's a highly problematic situation that presents poor choices, and then there's a holocaust that would be in place instead. It's stunning how anyone could think that would lead to better things!

This is why I don't like to discuss politics on G&S - I get sucked into it.