Will Trump be impeached?

[Docscurlock]

It's already clear the president didn't do anything wrong. Too many people like you are busy assuming he is guilty and must be proven to be innocent (which is impossible).

It's also already clear that the Dems keep accusing Trump of wrong doing when they have zero evidence of any wrong doing. They accused Trump of Russia collusion for two years when there was no evidence. They even said there was evidence when really there wasn't. The way this is supposed to go is you start with real evidence and then you go forward with an investigation. But you only start the investigation if you have evidence of wrong doing. That is how innocent people are supposed to be protected by our laws.

Can't you see you are on the wrong side here? You are siding with people who are flaunting and ignoring the law for political purposes. Is that how you want America to be in the future? People who disagree with the powerful get thrown in jail?

We are right on the cusp of becoming like a communist country and losing our rights. Doesn't this scare you?

Exactly, if the whistle blower was a true whistle blower he would have a reported a call where Trump specifically asked for an investigation or anything else personal or he will not release the aid. This didn't happen, he reported a call leaked from Vindman where Vindman told the whistle blower he didn't like something that he assumed Trump was insinuating in the call. Even the accusation is based on what he thought Trump wanted, not what Trump said. We are dragging the country through this farce for nothing. I bet impeachment wouldn't even pass the house right now. This is an attempt to smear the President politically and nothing more.

Sponsored

 

[Docscurlock]

Yes, that is a perfect example.

 

[GT Pony]

It's already clear the president didn't do anything wrong. Too many people like you are busy assuming he is guilty and must be proven to be innocent (which is impossible).

It's also already clear that the Dems keep accusing Trump of wrong doing when they have zero evidence of any wrong doing.

I think you're wrong. I never said he was guilty. I'm saying what I see as to what the evidence is uncovering and pointing to so far. Anyone who can't see how this is unfolding is blind and being brainwashed when they keep hearing stupid excuses (like the repeated "no quid pro quo" crap) with no evidence that really refutes how the picture is coming into focus. Even if there is no smoking gun of a direct quid pro quo per the political definition, there's still other things like abuse of power and justice/witness tampering. Bolton wants to testify, but he's being blocked to do so. What's that tell you after what these people testifying say about Bolton's involvement in all this? And Rudy Giuliani should also be made to testify. He sounds like the main guy between Trump and what was said to be going on.

It seem Dr. Hill schooled some people today, and filled in some missing pieces. Beginning to look like Sondland's memory and story was somewhat broad and lacked some details for maybe still some side loyalty to certain people, or he feels if he went into more detail he would be seen and implicated as part of the scheme in the side channel operations, as Dr. Hill described.

It's also already clear that the Dems keep accusing Trump of wrong doing when they have zero evidence of any wrong doing.

The way this is supposed to go is you start with real evidence and then you go forward with an investigation. But you only start the investigation if you have evidence of wrong doing. That is how innocent people are supposed to be protected by our laws

I guess you don't really understand this whole process. You think this process was all made up on the back of a napkin a few months ago?

Can't you see you are on the wrong side here? You are siding with people who are flaunting and ignoring the law for political purposes. Is that how you want America to be in the future? People who disagree with the powerful get thrown in jail?

I guess you haven't been reading my posts in this thread. I'm not on any side ... and if you want to 'put me on a side' then go back and read what I said about that.

How about people here take off the party hat and even take out the names of everyone involved in this situation and look at it like you have no love for ANYONE in this investigation, and just listen to what's being said. Imagine you're just a member of a pre-trial jury hearing what happened with a bunch of people that you don't know that might have broke laws or abused their power against rules/laws. I really don't think people can do that because they can't take off the party hat.

We are right on the cusp of becoming like a communist country and losing our rights. Doesn't this scare you?

Yeah, well we might also be in the early stages of becoming corrupt like the Ukraine was (Ukraine probably still is to some degree from the looks of it), or becoming like Russia where their leader has become/is a dictator. Ever think of that? Take off the one-way vision glasses ... you might have a different outlook.

And YES ... the Democrats running for President nomination, I don't like them either (shocker !). Yes, I don't like how EITHER PARTY if operating, they are both too far left or right for my liking. This country needs someone who's NOT corrupt, narcissistic and self serving, and who needs to operate in the middle of the left-right spectrum. Is that even possible these days when this country is so divided right now?

 

[GT Pony]

Nobody uses the words"quid pro quo" in a conversation. But in order for there to be a "quid pro quo" I, for example would have to say something like, "If you steal your neighbors car for me, i won't tell your wife I saw you with her sister." See, I want something nefarious and I bribe you with a reward or not carrying out with a threat. There was none of that in his phone call, no one who testified so far has said they were told that, no one was sent along to pass the message, no one has any proof that there were any conditions on Ukraine. Ukraine received the money and they never carried out any of the things people say Trump wanted. They got the potential reward without doing the favor already. This further shows there was no quid pro quo or bribery. This particular case should be closed

Wow, you mean if you did what you said in red in your quote above. even if that request you made was never conducted, that would be a 'quid pro quo'? I guess you have been filtering only what you want to hear in these testimonies. There is WAY MORE than the phone call now. Pretty strong evidence that there was certainly not going to be a meeting at the White House and withholding of military aid until Pres Z agreed to do as asked by Rudy and others (on behalf/through Trump) was asking for. Pretty much a direct analogy to your example in an indirect way. Give you something for something ... still a requested/consideration of quid pro quo that agrees between parties an exchange of things of value to both parties involved.

Look, is trump an angel? Hell no. But he is not guilty of what they are saying he has done, much like he was not a Russian plant or spy like they said he was. He has probably done shady deals, I have, you probably have not paid every cent you owe on taxes. If he is crooked, it will come out, but this is like I said before, shit!

I don't think it's shit because I have no affiliation with anyone involved. This whole process process will show that it's either "all shit" or it isn't. If this was Obama or anyone else, I'd be saying the same things seeing what I've heard so far. If for instance, the supposed Biden corruption was brought up and investigated when that was happening, I'd be listening to evidence and testimony too and making conclusions based on that. And if that evidence sounded like corruption for personal gains then it would also be wrong, and I'd say so. No different here, I see strong evidence of corruption. You don't need a smoking gun to conclude that, only a warm gun. Plenty of testimony to show a warm gun ... and maybe Bolton and Giuliani has the smoking gun. Why is Bolton being blocked to testify when it was said he wants to testify. It evident that he should testify based on what other personally there saw him do and react to things going on.

If it isn't obvious at this point, I don't like corrupt people, and from what I'm seeing there's definitely sketchy/corrupt things going on. Is it 'typical politics" .... some is, and some isn't. The part that isn't is why this is all being investigated. People shouldn't risk going into a mine field when they know they could get blown up, unless of course the rewards in their minds seem to be greater that the risk.

 

[Docscurlock]

Wow, you mean if you did what you said in red in your quote above. even if that request you made was never conducted, that would be a 'quid pro quo'? I guess you have been filtering only what you want to hear in these testimonies. There is WAY MORE than the phone call now. Pretty strong evidence that there was certainly not going to be a meeting at the White House and withholding of military aid until Pres Z agreed to do as asked by Rudy and others (on behalf/through Trump) was asking for. Pretty much a direct analogy to your example in an indirect way. Give you something for something ... still a requested/consideration of quid pro quo that agrees between parties an exchange of things of value to both parties involved.



I don't think it's shit because I have no affiliation with anyone involved. This whole process process will show that it's either "all shit" or it isn't. If this was Obama or anyone else, I'd be saying the same things seeing what I've heard so far. If for instance, the supposed Biden corruption was brought up and investigated when that was happening, I'd be listening to evidence and testimony too and making conclusions based on that. And if that evidence sounded like corruption for personal gains then it would also be wrong, and I'd say so. No different here, I see strong evidence of corruption. You don't need a smoking gun to conclude that, only a warm gun. Plenty of testimony to show a warm gun ... and maybe Bolton and Giuliani has the smoking gun. Why is Bolton being blocked to testify when it was said he wants to testify. It evident that he should testify based on what other personally there saw him do and react to things going on.

If it isn't obvious at this point, I don't like corrupt people, and from what I'm seeing there's definitely sketchy/corrupt things going on. Is it 'typical politics" .... some is, and some isn't. The part that isn't is why this is all being investigated. People shouldn't risk going into a mine field when they know they could get blown up, unless of course the rewards in their minds seem to be greater that the risk.

If this was Obama, i would still call this "shit". I'm not a partisan distributor of shit. This is a total waste of everyone's time, if anything makes the US less safe or the laughing stock in any country it is this clown Schiff and his circus.

 

[GT Pony]

More obtuseness - yes you have the definition down. Sorry if you really can't take off the party hat and can't see a simple analogy.

You best go back and re-read what I really said about anyone testifying in this investigation. EVERONE involved should testify if it's decided they have pertinent information, and testify it out in the open. I even said that would include Rudy and Trump. Only person I said that shouldn't testify in the open - and could behind closed doors to anyone's questions instead of warranted - is the whistleblower. And also said if the WB did volunteer to testify in the open then let him. But at this point the WB has absolutely zero to add. Just like a guy who pulled the fire alarm is not an important party involved in a fire investigation. Yeah, I know it's a scary hard analogy to see. Hearing these testimonies so far, there was a lot of reporting of sketchy things going on (a form of "whistleblowing") ... so the real testimony of the real WB doesn't mean jack at this point.

 

[GT Pony]

Exactly, if the whistle blower was a true whistle blower he would have a reported a call where Trump specifically asked for an investigation or anything else personal or he will not release the aid. This didn't happen, he reported a call leaked from Vindman where Vindman told the whistle blower he didn't like something that he assumed Trump was insinuating in the call. Even the accusation is based on what he thought Trump wanted, not what Trump said. We are dragging the country through this farce for nothing. I bet impeachment wouldn't even pass the house right now. This is an attempt to smear the President politically and nothing more.

Not how whistleblowing works. These investigations wouldn't even have happened if the people investigating the WB's report didn't think there was some validity to open an investigation of any possible reported supposed mis-doing. The investigation is to determine if there was anything going on as reported by the WB. Well, things are being peeled back and it's obvious the WB's complaint was valid enough to look into it further.

Trump even mentioned the Bidens and stuff relating to the 2016 election in this released July 25th phone call. Trump and Rudy have even mentioned investigating the Bidens on TV interviews for all to hear - even after the FEC made clear (before July 25th) to the whole world that even asking for help on political rivals from foreign countries is a crime. Who is stupid enough to walk in a mine field and step on a mine after being told exactly where the mines are located?

You really think Trump, the guy who wrote a book about "The Art of the Deal" (see attached) would incriminate himself and saying on a phone call, that he knew was being listened to and transcribed for history, that he would make it a clear 'quid pro quo' with Pres Z for all to hear and be recorded in a document? I can see why someone reported that conversation - and can see why the transcript "mistakenly" ended up on a non-standard used server (bury the turd). I've worked my whole career in government contracted related work areas where WB was encouraged if things were seen or heard that could cause problems. Some people still operate in government related jobs per the rules.

And you still think there is no possible tie or possible motivation into Trump, Rudy's and Barr's (who he mentions many times in the July 25th phone call to Pres Z that they will be getting "involved" because they know "what's going on"), might not have any underlying personal political motives? - which now turn up being the dealings as described by all the testimony given by people right in the fray of it all. LoL, ok ... keep going with the blind logic because there's no smoking gun of Trump being heard specifically saying that to anyone who's testified so far. Just because he didn't specially say that to anyone (might have to the people like Rudy, Barr and Bolton who are intentionally blocked from testifying) doesn't mean that wasn't going on in a behind the scenes matter. Seems like quite a few people got a sniff of this going on behind the scenes.

 

[GT Pony]

Then someone should open an investigation on Biden for doing this if he becomes POTUS - but not before like Trump apparently tried to do, and set off land mines because of breaking Constitution and FEC rules). Because from how I understand it, a POTUS can also be impeached because of crimes committed before he became POTUS.

Sorry man, I love nobody in Gov't. I don't think people know how to handle someone who doesn't wear a party hat.

 

[EcoVert]

If this was Obama, i would still call this "shit". I'm not a partisan distributor of shit. This is a total waste of everyone's time,

Oh but the socialist Democrats get to spend and pocket lots of our money and sit on there ass and do NOTHING for the American people but show how greedy they are for power at any cost. I would like to see all the politicians involved in this have there pay docked to pay for this kangaroo court proceeding and our tax payer money spent to help us.

 

[EcoVert]

Sounds like what the democrats are investigating saying Trump did Biden did it first and there blaming Trump for it.

 

[Docscurlock]

Then someone should open an investigation on Biden for doing this if he becomes POTUS - but not before like Trump apparently tried to do, and set off land mines because of breaking Constitution and FEC rules). Because from how I understand it, a POTUS can also be impeached because of crimes committed before he became POTUS.

Sorry man, I love nobody in Gov't. I don't think people know how to handle someone who doesn't wear a party hat.

Hopefully when this comes out in the Senate trial they will. I'm not pro republican, I'm anti liberal/socialist/communist/tree hugger or whatever they want to be called in their little cis-gendered fantasy world. If Trump is the best chance of stopping these people, I wouldn't care if he shot Nancy Pelosi right in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

 

[Docscurlock]

Oh but the socialist Democrats get to spend and pocket lots of our money and sit on there ass and do NOTHING for the American people but show how greedy they are for power at any cost. I would like to see all the politicians involved in this have there pay docked to pay for this kangaroo court proceeding and our tax payer money spent to help us.

I don't know, the guy who said, "Did anyone on this planet tell you there was a quid pro quo" earned a little for being funny.

 

[Docscurlock]

Sounds like what the democrats are investigating saying Trump did Biden did it first and there blaming Trump for it.

But Biden did it out of patriotism and love of his country.

Sponsored