The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
There's 12 witnesses that claim to have evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.. Could be... or it could be completely false and the democrats could crash and burn.. I could care less which one it is however i'd rather hear whatever they have rather than have the Republicans block the witnesses from testifying.
There are ~12 witnesses that learned about/heard/presumed/assumed that Trump withheld money from Ukraine -- for some unknown reason -- then eventually released it.
There's a HUGE difference in those two statements: there is not one witness that has claimed to have ANY evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.
So here's a question, since the narrative has come up, if Biden wasn't running for President at the time would he have still been impeached over this? Would he still be the "Framer's worst nightmare?" What is the impeachable offense here? Withholding US taxpayer money from a foreign country against their knowledge? Or is it asking a foreign country to provide the US some answers on a subject (keep in mind the Ukraine was already investigating Burisma)?
Since the articles of impeachment go with the premise that impeachable offense was "soliciting interfering from a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential Election" by "publicly announcing an investigation through pressure" in pursuit "of personal political benefit that harmed the nation," we need to stick to this definition. So I ask: please show me once shred of actual evidence that supports this claim. Remember, no one is ever denying he withheld aid -- so us this evidence that proves he corruptly pressured Ukraine into announcing a investigation for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process. Also remember that Ukraine has denied this claim, and never given such announcement.
This is the "evidence" and the case that the House gave to the Senate. It's not the Senate's obligation to continue the information gathering they failed to provide. Of course, that also assumes the House wasn't corruptly impeaching a President for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
Last edited by Braineack; Jan 28, 2020 at 12:17 PM.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
see post: 16736.
So are you saying there is no evidence? I thought 12 witnesses had all the evidence we needed? What happened? Do you think maybe the corrupt political opponents are just doing this for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process?
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
From: OKC, OK
Under New Trump Admin Guidelines, Pasta Is Now A Vegetable In American Schools
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...vk-J8VfYMcFF0k
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...vk-J8VfYMcFF0k
"Pasta made of vegetable flour may credit as a vegetable"
We often buy this,
Reply
0
0
Junior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
From: Portland, OR
There's 12 witnesses that claim to have evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.. Could be... or it could be completely false and the democrats could crash and burn.. I could care less which one it is however i'd rather hear whatever they have rather than have the Republicans block the witnesses from testifying.
I predict this case gets tossed out. This is court folks; not that kangaroo banana court from the House. Partisan Impeachment?! Seriously? Took over 3yrs to impeach Clinton for an actual crime, but by denying Trump basic legal rights (representation, cross-examination, etc.) the Dumocrats were able to take care of business in 72 days. Not a single vote from Republicans. A partisan impeachment by the losing political party. Nonsense.
They are actually using rules and law and precedent. You can't claim the President is obstructing justice when issue falsely generated subpoenas. The President also does not need to comply with another Branch for fear of reprisal, because that would mean the Executive branch is carries less weight than the Judicial or Legislative.
Reply
1
1
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
It's not going to get tossed out, but it will result in acquittal.
At the risk of sounding like Braineack, that's always been the plan. Trump was always going to be impeached for something, the left had been talking about that even before he took office. It was just a matter of timing, to find something impeachable which could be tried in an election year.
Thus far, we've seen pretty nearly universal party-line voting. The House was never not going to vote for impeachment, just as the Senate will never vote to convict. But the democrats' aim here isn't to remove the President, it's just to weaken him, as well as any Senate republicans who may be up for re-election this year.
As such, facts don't really matter to either side. There's no need to have additional witness testimony, because the verdict was cast during the 2016 election, when the Senate wound up with less than a 2/3 democrat majority, which is what would be needed for a conviction.
At the risk of sounding like Braineack, that's always been the plan. Trump was always going to be impeached for something, the left had been talking about that even before he took office. It was just a matter of timing, to find something impeachable which could be tried in an election year.
Thus far, we've seen pretty nearly universal party-line voting. The House was never not going to vote for impeachment, just as the Senate will never vote to convict. But the democrats' aim here isn't to remove the President, it's just to weaken him, as well as any Senate republicans who may be up for re-election this year.
As such, facts don't really matter to either side. There's no need to have additional witness testimony, because the verdict was cast during the 2016 election, when the Senate wound up with less than a 2/3 democrat majority, which is what would be needed for a conviction.
Reply
1
1
see post: 16736.
So are you saying there is no evidence? I thought 12 witnesses had all the evidence we needed? What happened? Do you think maybe the corrupt political opponents are just doing this for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process?
Also this is interesting.
Senators overseeing impeachment trial got campaign cash from Trump legal team members
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/202...om-trump-team/
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
They already did in the House Intelligence Committee Hearings Nov 13, 2019 - Nov 21, 2019.
And, again, they produced exactly 0 evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.
The report drafted from their hearing was sent to the House Judiciary Committee and they voted to impeach President Trump on Dec 18, 2019.
Where were you?
And, again, they produced exactly 0 evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.
The report drafted from their hearing was sent to the House Judiciary Committee and they voted to impeach President Trump on Dec 18, 2019.
Where were you?
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Also this is interesting.
Senators overseeing impeachment trial got campaign cash from Trump legal team members
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/202...om-trump-team/also this is interesting.
Former White House national security adviser John Bolton pocketed $115,000 from Ukrainian steel oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s foundation shortly before entering President Donald Trump’s White House as national security adviser, a position first held in the Trump White House by General Michael Flynn.
Reply
0
0
Chelsea Handler donated $5,400 to Adam Schiff in 2018. She has made a career of hating on Trump. Could it be she paid Adam Schiff to impeach Trump for comedy material?!
also this is interesting.
you know who else Viktor Pinchuk famously donated to? I'll give you a hint, it begins with 10 to $25 million and ends with Clinton Foundation...
also this is interesting.
you know who else Viktor Pinchuk famously donated to? I'll give you a hint, it begins with 10 to $25 million and ends with Clinton Foundation...
Reply
0
0
Of course you realize, that would virtually cripple the entirety of the American political structure.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
From: OKC, OK
Uhhhhh, when is this not the case? Isn't that the point of donating to politicians in the first place?
Reply
1
1
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Now you're just making up ****!
There are ~12 witnesses that learned about/heard/presumed/assumed that Trump withheld money from Ukraine -- for some unknown reason -- then eventually released it.
There's a HUGE difference in those two statements: there is not one witness that has claimed to have ANY evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.
So here's a question, since the narrative has come up, if Biden wasn't running for President at the time would he have still been impeached over this? Would he still be the "Framer's worst nightmare?" What is the impeachable offense here? Withholding US taxpayer money from a foreign country against their knowledge? Or is it asking a foreign country to provide the US some answers on a subject (keep in mind the Ukraine was already investigating Burisma)?
Since the articles of impeachment go with the premise that impeachable offense was "soliciting interfering from a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential Election" by "publicly announcing an investigation through pressure" in pursuit "of personal political benefit that harmed the nation," we need to stick to this definition. So I ask: please show me once shred of actual evidence that supports this claim. Remember, no one is ever denying he withheld aid -- so us this evidence that proves he corruptly pressured Ukraine into announcing a investigation for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process. Also remember that Ukraine has denied this claim, and never given such announcement.
This is the "evidence" and the case that the House gave to the Senate. It's not the Senate's obligation to continue the information gathering they failed to provide. Of course, that also assumes the House wasn't corruptly impeaching a President for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
There are ~12 witnesses that learned about/heard/presumed/assumed that Trump withheld money from Ukraine -- for some unknown reason -- then eventually released it.
There's a HUGE difference in those two statements: there is not one witness that has claimed to have ANY evidence that proves Trump withheld money from Ukraine unless they get dirt on his political opponent.
So here's a question, since the narrative has come up, if Biden wasn't running for President at the time would he have still been impeached over this? Would he still be the "Framer's worst nightmare?" What is the impeachable offense here? Withholding US taxpayer money from a foreign country against their knowledge? Or is it asking a foreign country to provide the US some answers on a subject (keep in mind the Ukraine was already investigating Burisma)?
Since the articles of impeachment go with the premise that impeachable offense was "soliciting interfering from a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential Election" by "publicly announcing an investigation through pressure" in pursuit "of personal political benefit that harmed the nation," we need to stick to this definition. So I ask: please show me once shred of actual evidence that supports this claim. Remember, no one is ever denying he withheld aid -- so us this evidence that proves he corruptly pressured Ukraine into announcing a investigation for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process. Also remember that Ukraine has denied this claim, and never given such announcement.
This is the "evidence" and the case that the House gave to the Senate. It's not the Senate's obligation to continue the information gathering they failed to provide. Of course, that also assumes the House wasn't corruptly impeaching a President for the purpose of harming the election prospects of a political opponent, thus undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
Ugh, why doesn't Brianeack ever have a real conservation here... all he does is post dank *** memes that make me think.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
It's okay now, because he lied on TV. Journalists are still 100% ethical and truthful with zero bias and have no agenda.
Reply
0
0
