impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[RomaVicta 29941]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Why so judgmental? Can't we just agree that he's a stupid fuck and leave it at that.  

He's not stupid. I don't think he's deceived, either.

Maybe he is the purest product of the hate engine and has been convinced that libs/Dems are against the US and his side are the country's only true defenders. In that role of warrior, he uses any weapon against the supposed enemy. He'll repeat and regurgitate lies. He'll set up equivocations that are not apt. He'll put out some pretty good sophistry knowing that the argument is unsound. 

Defeat the libs! Protect America! Trump may be a bastard, but he's our bastard!

Perhaps he will read this and declare that I am intolerant and woefully biased against GOPs the way he may be against Dems/libs. I'll pre-emptively answer that I point to individuals. I've more than once stated the absolute necessity for the traditional principles of the Republicans to be part of the national discourse. I'm talking about the conservatism that many ex-GOPs thought they were supporting for the 35 years preceding the ascent of Trump.

Today's GOP that supports Trump is now the Trump party. Trump's wickedness is in plain sight. Some support him out of ignorance. Some do so out of willful ignorance. Some do so as Zavala and Fozz. They're not stupid. That's a facile description. They know what they're doing; they're capable of seeing the facts.

Why do they deny the facts? Maybe for the reason I describe above in my speculation about Zavala. Maybe they get something out of this shit show. Maybe they're on the payroll. Maybe some other reason. But they're not stupid, and that makes me wary of them. I can't understand why they remain steadfast when so many other former, smart GOPs have abandoned that party.

I'd prefer they abandon their positions and rethink their politics; become part of a new outlet for actual conservatism. But I don't think they will. What's in it for them? Hard to say.

A long muse, my friends, but characterizing an opponent as deficient is a sure way to give that opponent an edge. The Romans constantly coached the legions not to despise their enemies but to respect their fighting ability. Be ready to fight hard. I don't want to give any kind of an edge to anyone harming the US.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

Look, you're overpainting this.  Some people seek nothing but the truth.  Many on this board meet that standard.  Many former Republicans now admit that they were supporting what turned out to be a decaying corpse that eventually revealed itself for what it was, and they said "enough, I can't support this", and they're speaking out now, loudly and frequently.

Other people like Zavala and Rocko have no concern for the truth.  They are either too stupid to separate wheat from chaff, or they are morally bankrupt and only out for themselves.  Or both.  Some of these people are sociopaths.  Some are actual psychopaths.  Some, again, are just plain fucking stupid.

I don't care what the diagnosis is.  All I care is that they are defeated.  We are on a path where that's about to get a lot more real.  Take that however you like.

[Dnaguy 12002]

28 minutes ago, Mapache said:

A better idea is to ship Trump and his cult members off to be with their brethren in Russia 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just read the articles of impeachment themselves. Pretty devastating and if proved would definitely warrant removal of any president. 

The dems are on the right side of history here and trumps defenders are clearly in the wrong. 

Even the trolls here know that trump is unfit to hold office. They just don’t care and/or are paid to espouse out their bullshit all over the net. 

Edited December 10, 2019 by JimmyJames

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, Zavala said:

 

Either way, the dems are broke, they don't have the money to campaign, they haven't done anything with the majority in congress, so their strategy is to attack Trump to try and get the twitter types all riled up

 How many of the 400 bills passed by the House has the Senate voted on?

[Fozzz 152]

29 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

He's not stupid. I don't think he's deceived, either.

Maybe he is the purest product of the hate engine and has been convinced that libs/Dems are against the US and his side are the country's only true defenders. In that role of warrior, he uses any weapon against the supposed enemy. He'll repeat and regurgitate lies. He'll set up equivocations that are not apt. He'll put out some pretty good sophistry knowing that the argument is unsound. 

Defeat the libs! Protect America! Trump may be a bastard, but he's our bastard!

Perhaps he will read this and declare that I am intolerant and woefully biased against GOPs the way he may be against Dems/libs. I'll pre-emptively answer that I point to individuals. I've more than once stated the absolute necessity for the traditional principles of the Republicans to be part of the national discourse. I'm talking about the conservatism that many ex-GOPs thought they were supporting for the 35 years preceding the ascent of Trump.

Today's GOP that supports Trump is now the Trump party. Trump's wickedness is in plain sight. Some support him out of ignorance. Some do so out of willful ignorance. Some do so as Zavala and Fozz. They're not stupid. That's a facile description. They know what they're doing; they're capable of seeing the facts.

Why do they deny the facts? Maybe for the reason I describe above in my speculation about Zavala. Maybe they get something out of this shit show. Maybe they're on the payroll. Maybe some other reason. But they're not stupid, and that makes me wary of them. I can't understand why they remain steadfast when so many other former, smart GOPs have abandoned that party.

I'd prefer they abandon their positions and rethink their politics; become part of a new outlet for actual conservatism. But I don't think they will. What's in it for them? Hard to say.

A long muse, my friends, but characterizing an opponent as deficient is a sure way to give that opponent an edge. The Romans constantly coached the legions not to despise their enemies but to respect their fighting ability. Be ready to fight hard. I don't want to give any kind of an edge to anyone harming the US.

Where do you get the idea that I support Trump?  

[Gatorubet 30261]

Let's not forget that Trump and Mick Mulvaney ADMITTED doing this.

Fake Admissions Libtard!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ndawg 1242]

35 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

He's not stupid. I don't think he's deceived, either.

Maybe he is the purest product of the hate engine and has been convinced that libs/Dems are against the US and his side are the country's only true defenders. In that role of warrior, he uses any weapon against the supposed enemy. He'll repeat and regurgitate lies. He'll set up equivocations that are not apt. He'll put out some pretty good sophistry knowing that the argument is unsound. 

Defeat the libs! Protect America! Trump may be a bastard, but he's our bastard!

Perhaps he will read this and declare that I am intolerant and woefully biased against GOPs the way he may be against Dems/libs. I'll pre-emptively answer that I point to individuals. I've more than once stated the absolute necessity for the traditional principles of the Republicans to be part of the national discourse. I'm talking about the conservatism that many ex-GOPs thought they were supporting for the 35 years preceding the ascent of Trump.

Today's GOP that supports Trump is now the Trump party. Trump's wickedness is in plain sight. Some support him out of ignorance. Some do so out of willful ignorance. Some do so as Zavala and Fozz. They're not stupid. That's a facile description. They know what they're doing; they're capable of seeing the facts.

Why do they deny the facts? Maybe for the reason I describe above in my speculation about Zavala. Maybe they get something out of this shit show. Maybe they're on the payroll. Maybe some other reason. But they're not stupid, and that makes me wary of them. I can't understand why they remain steadfast when so many other former, smart GOPs have abandoned that party.

I'd prefer they abandon their positions and rethink their politics; become part of a new outlet for actual conservatism. But I don't think they will. What's in it for them? Hard to say.

A long muse, my friends, but characterizing an opponent as deficient is a sure way to give that opponent an edge. The Romans constantly coached the legions not to despise their enemies but to respect their fighting ability. Be ready to fight hard. I don't want to give any kind of an edge to anyone harming the US.

I've spent a lot of time racking my brain trying to figure out these people. Here's my best guess:

You know how it feels when your sports team is caught in a nail-biter and, in the closing minutes, benefits from an extremely questionable officiating decision? A bit icky, right? How about a bit later on, when that icky feeling mixes with the thrill of a narrow victory? The two conflicting emotions mix to produce a sort of exasperated relief. As time goes on, you remember the call less and less, and more importantly, once you convince yourself of some other calls went against your team, you determine that the officiating evened out in the end, anyways.

So it is with all these obvious lies they buy in to. If Trump gets unfairly vindicated, their team wins. It doesn't matter that they got help from the refs every step of the way in the form of obstruction of justice and propaganda. They won, and soon that's all that will matter.

Think about these people's psyche for a minute. Underneath it all, their underlying belief is that only the strong survive. If they can't make it in life, it's because they weren't strong. Their entire ego is tied to this identity of being one of the strong. Think about why they bought into the idea of "socialism" (anything to the left of cutthroat capitalism) as a boogey man -- they simply refuse to accept survival on any terms other than having "earned" it through their hard work and valor. And if they can't actually earn it, their ego will point them to the next best alternative -- support the big strong man that will remove competition until they're the only ones left to be declared "winners."

The right loves Trump because he gives them precisely what they want. Above all else, they need to feel like they're "winning" in life, and that they're "above" the losers who slip through the cracks. Trump will rig the game for them. That's why they support him, and why they won't stop supporting him. Sure, they get the benefit of some questionable calls. But those go both ways, right? All that matters to them is that they win.

They're broken people. We're fucked.

Edited December 10, 2019 by ndawg

[RomaVicta 29941]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Where do you get the idea that I support Trump?  

What have your posts reflected regarding the accusations against the president and the validity of the impeachment? 

Perhaps I have misread you. I've long been an admirer of your chosen avatars. Who is this woman?

[David Dennison 18938]

3 hours ago, Fozzz said:

The eternal pessimist chimes in.

I notice you don't disagree.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Just read the articles of impeachment themselves. Pretty devastating and if proved would definitely warrant removal of any president. 

deserve's got nothing to do with it.

[atomheartbevo 89738]

4 hours ago, Enchubben said:

I think Trump was going to get re-elected anyways, but this planned, transparent and flawed impeachment is going to put the nail in the coffin.

You know who doesn't think that?  President Donald J. Trump.  How do I know?  I look at his twitter feed every day or two.  The man is scared shitless and his constant whining and attacks make that abundantly clear.

We are almost to the point where he's just going to retweet this every day:

 

DO SOMETHING!

[BNB 100]

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

Trump had a phone call stating he wanted Ukraine corruption to stop after the new President was elected, and he wanted to know if they had any info on The Russia Investigation into him that was proved false. He had just seen on the news someone showing a video of Biden bragging about getting a Ukraine official fired, so he asked about that also.

Behind the scenes he was withholding aid, but that was not uncommon.  

Good luck with that.  This will cost you.

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by BNB

[Brisketexan 105161]

Just now, BNB said:

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

GOP world: where testimony isn't evidence.

Fascinating.  Truly fascinating.

Also, gaslighting -- no need for a quid pro quo.  All that's necessary is the solicitation of a benefit from a foreign power.  He asked for Ukraine to ANNOUNCE an investigation. That's it, that's all we need to know.

Gaslighting.  No understanding of what evidence is.  This is where the Trumpkin party is.  We are the Republic of Stupid.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, BNB said:

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

Trump had a phone call stating he wanted Ukraine corruption to stop after the new President was elected, and he wanted to know if they had any info on The Russia Investigation into him that was proved false. He had just seen on the news someone showing a video of Biden bragging about getting a Ukraine official fired, so he asked about that also.

 

Good luck with that.  This will cost you.

 

Honest question. Where do you get your information, News, or sources of media that led you to your understanding of the situation?

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, BNB said:

Trump had a phone call stating he wanted Ukraine corruption to stop after the new President was elected, and he wanted to know if they had any info on The Russia Investigation into him that was proved false. He had just seen on the news someone showing a video of Biden bragging about getting a Ukraine official fired, so he asked about that also.

the white house released an edited version of the transcript that never mentioned the word "corruption".

if it was the policy of the united states to look into what was going on in the ukraine, why did trump refer to it as a "favor"?

a quid pro quo isn't required for abuse of power to happen, but there was one anyway.  and if there wasn't, why did mulvaney go on tv and say there was?  is that the witness you're talking about?

this wasn't about the biden video.  this was about a biden poll showing trump he was getting his ass kicked, and one day removed from the muller report, so he figured the coast was clear.

it wasn't.

[Foosters 17858]

5 minutes ago, BNB said:

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

Trump had a phone call stating he wanted Ukraine corruption to stop after the new President was elected, and he wanted to know if they had any info on The Russia Investigation into him that was proved false. He had just seen on the news someone showing a video of Biden bragging about getting a Ukraine official fired, so he asked about that also.

Behind the scenes he was withholding aid, but that was not uncommon.  

Good luck with that.  This will cost you.

 

hahahaha 

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

5 minutes ago, BNB said:

Good luck with that.  This will cost you.

it's costing us already.  all of us.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

What have your posts reflected regarding the accusations against the president and the validity of the impeachment? 

Perhaps I have misread you. I've long been an admirer of your chosen avatars. Who is this woman?

Lelia Goldoni.

[BNB 100]

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

14 minutes ago, BNB said:

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

I'm not a Democrat.  Regardless, Mick Mulvaney ADMITTED quid pro quo and then Trump corroborated.  Furthermore, Holmes heard the entire call between Trump and Sondland confirming the scheme.  But hey, you just keep doing you, God knows we need more traitors to track down when this shit comes to a head.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, BNB said:

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

That's what morons see.  The public who have critical thought capabilities want the corrupt asshole out. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19426]

1 minute ago, BNB said:

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

serious question...do you understand how the legislative process in this country works? 

[David Dennison 18938]

1 minute ago, BNB said:

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

The son's company wasn't being investigated when the prosecutor was fired. The entire western alliance wanted him gone.

The House has passed 300 bills. The Senate then does nothing.

Republicans are the problem in this country. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

Just now, BNB said:

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

Dems have passed hundreds of bills.  On issues of great import to the American people.  They are sitting on McConnell's desk.

You are gaslighting and ignoring facts -- the desire was that Ukraine ANNOUNCE an investigation.  That's solely a political move for advantage in an election.

So, you're embedding lies at a Trumpian rate.  Of course you will support him -- he's you.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

3 minutes ago, BNB said:

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

Why in the blue hell would the Democrats pass any more bills for the Senate to stonewall?  For fuck's sake, do some fucking homework you stooge.

[Chad Fuck 17689]

Trololololololo......

[hayden_horn 11362]

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

Trololololololo......

no, you see, he really believes this stuff. these are actually real people with these false beliefs. it's the strangest condition.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

no, you see, he really believes this stuff. these are actually real people with these false beliefs. it's the strangest condition.

it's the equivalent of cancer for democracy

[BNB 100]

I really don't care if he is impeached or not.

At this point, I think the GOP and country would be better for it if he were.

I like most of his policies and the direction most things are going, but  I would not like a socialist in the White House.

Haley or Pence would be fine by me.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

3 minutes ago, BNB said:

I really don't care if he is impeached or not.

At this point, I think the GOP and country would be better for it if he were.

I like most of his policies and the direction most things are going, but  I would not like a socialist in the White House.

Haley or Pence would be fine by me.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

Good thing there aren't any socialists running for POTUS.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

Here's a theory I've had for some time.  Most of Trump's corrupt behavior is of a TYPE that many or most politicians engage in.  It is of a greater MAGNITUDE and with more brazenness than we have ever seen before.  As I believe I have said, he turns it up to 11 and writes it large in purple crayon.  Combine it with his blithering idiocy, along with that of his aides and appointees, and I'm surprised he hasn't publicly committed more easily proven serious crimes than we have seen to date.

Some seem to want to excuse Trump's behavior as "everyone does it, so what."  I am quite capable of this level of cynicism.

I have come around to the view that persecuting/prosecuting Trump may or can be the end of tolerance for this TYPE of behavior from our politicians, without regard to the MAGNITUDE of it.

I confuse myself with my optimism sometimes, though.

Edited December 10, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29194]

12 minutes ago, BNB said:

I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

uh, he spent the entire ramp up (years, not months) digging up dirt and trying to get hillary's disapproval numbers high enough to be the "less hated" name on the ballot.

now he's doing it with biden.  if warren wins the nomination, he'll spend 8 months trying to get people to be suspicious of her and not like her.  fox is doing that already.

this is a feature, not a bug.  this is how he thinks elections are won.  this is how he thinks politics works.  he was "investigating" obama's birth certificate for years.

if america devolved into thunderdome-style post-apocalyptic mayhem and he ran for office 10x, you can believe he would do this 10x.

this isn't a president abusing power to push his political agenda or religious beliefs or anything normal illegal, this is him abusing power to help win an election.  he's in office enriching himself, making himself into a king accountable to no one, and he's abusing power to allow him to stay there longer.  this is why you impeach, effectively and urgently.  this is why a censure is pointless.

if impeachment laws were rewritten in a more specific way tomorrow, interfering with an election would be #1 on the list.

wake up.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

20 minutes ago, BNB said:

I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

THIS. IS. NOT. WHAT. HAPPENED.

THIS IS FICTION.  STOP IT.

[Brisketexan 105161]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I confuse myself with my optimism sometimes, though.

You shouldn't do that.

Do the opposite.  His behavior to the extreme now normalizes it at all levels of magnitude.  What is happening now is the future order of things.

Ledge, dude.  That's the only rational place to be these days.

[Helobious 9463]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a theory I've had for some time.  Most of Trump's corrupt behavior is of a TYPE that many or most politicians engage in.  It is of a greater MAGNITUDE and with more brazenness than we have ever seen before.  As I believe I have said, he turns it up to 11 and writes it large in purple crayon.  Combine it with his blithering idiocy, along with that of his aides and appointees, and I'm surprised he hasn't publicly committed more easily proven serious crimes than we have seen to date.

Some seem to want to excuse Trump's behavior as "everyone does it, so what."  

I have come around to the view that persecuting/prosecuting Trump may or can be the end of tolerance for this TYPE of behavior from our politicians, without regard to the MAGNITUDE of it.

I confuse myself with my optimism sometimes, though.

I completely agree with this. I thought this was all a huge waste of time, and still believe there’s a 0% chance that he’ll get impeached. I also think he’s a lock to get re-elected. But I bet he and other politicians will probably think twice before engaging in these kind of activities again. Even though he’ll escape punishment there’s no questioning that this has been a massive pain in the ass for him.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Helobious

[Enchubben 5510]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

GOP world: where testimony isn't evidence.

Fascinating.  Truly fascinating

The supposed party that was harmed from this, the Ukrainian president, has stated multiple times that there was no quid pro quo and that the aid being tied up had nothing to do with an investigation into the Biden’s.

Does his testimony count?

[Biff Tannen 45692]

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

still believe there’s a 0% chance that he’ll get impeached. I also think he’s a lock to get re-elected. But I bet he and other politicians will probably think twice before engaging in these kind of activities again. 

What?  Why would they think twice after they got away with it and it has been proven there is no way to stop them?

[henrygandorf 29194]

Just now, Enchubben said:

The supposed party that was harmed from this, the Ukrainian president, has stated multiple times that there was no quid pro quo and that the aid being tied up had nothing to do with an investigation into the Biden’s.

Does his testimony count?

if he's sworn in, sure, why not.

he has everything to lose by admitting the relationship.  he needs america's help, more than arguably any other "ally".

and no, the ukranian president wasn't the supposed party harmed by this.  i'll go ahead and say the ukranians that lost their lives in the 55 days trying to fight the russians while the aid was held up may have a better case.

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

But I bet he and other politicians will probably think twice before engaging in these kind of activities again. 

I wouldn't bet on it.

[BNB 100]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

I completely agree with this. I thought this was all a huge waste of time, and still believe there’s a 0% chance that he’ll get impeached. I also think he’s a lock to get re-elected. But I bet he and other politicians will probably think twice before engaging in these kind of activities again. 

This. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

The supposed party that was harmed from this, the Ukrainian president, has stated multiple times that there was no quid pro quo and that the aid being tied up had nothing to do with an investigation into the Biden’s.

Does his testimony count?

I dunno.  Jurors weigh credibility.  What do you think of the statements of someone who was and remains under duress and beholden to the person asking them to deny that the person asked them to do something illegal?  Put in simple terms...is it more or less likely that the president of Ukraine, a country that is very dependent on the goodwill of the US and its current administration, said exactly what the POTUS wanted him to say?

"Hey, that gal you thought I was raping because I had a gun to her head, I asked her to tell you what was up, and she said it was all totally consensual"....is a defense that has never, ever worked.  But apparently, a jury full of Trumpkins would buy it as "CASE CLOSED" proof, and acquit the dude.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

It's like we're playing cards with our brother's kids here.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's like we're playing cards with our brother's kids here.

Does your brother have really stupid kids?

[RomaVicta 29941]

30 minutes ago, BNB said:

So you Dems have one or 2 people stating they presumed Trump wanted quid pro quo, nothing evident. 

Trump had a phone call stating he wanted Ukraine corruption to stop after the new President was elected, and he wanted to know if they had any info on The Russia Investigation into him that was proved false. He had just seen on the news someone showing a video of Biden bragging about getting a Ukraine official fired, so he asked about that also.

Behind the scenes he was withholding aid, but that was not uncommon.  

Good luck with that.  This will cost you.

 

Negged for lying. Trump never mentions Ukrainian corruption in the call.

Withholding aid is not uncommon for policy reasons. No credible policy reason exists for halting this aid which was designated to help Ukraine fight off invading Russians.

"One or 2 people" having presumptions is also inaccurate. High level public officials concluded that the investigation into Biden was the only thing Trump could have been holding out for. There was no other policy reason to halt aid that had been voted on by Congress.

Lastly, the peddled notion that an informed Trump was worried about corruption in the new Ukraine administration is absurd on a number of levels. Any person of even cursory knowledge of Ukraine would know that a corrupt government had been voted out of office by a candidate running specifically on ending corruption. The aid had been approved when the actually corrupt leader was in power. Things were clearly no worse corruption-wise.

Trump never personally raised Ukraine corruption issues when the place was its most corrupt. His agent, Rudy, was dealing with the corrupt regime in hopes of getting them to allege dirt on Biden. Trump's only concern about the new administration was that they wouldn't be corrupt enough to help him politically.

Trump mentioning a favor is the introduction of corruption in America's relationship with the new Ukrainian president.

"This will cost you."

Fuck you. You want the team whose jersey you wear to win the big game. You don't care how, and you don't mind diminishing whatever integrity you may have had to promote that victory. I would love to be in a bar where people like you might taunt people like me as losers. 

But snowflakes melt when forced to voice their dogma in person to real people. Like the coward Trump himself.

[Tuco 5076]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

The supposed party that was harmed from this, the Ukrainian president, has stated multiple times that there was no quid pro quo and that the aid being tied up had nothing to do with an investigation into the Biden’s.

Does his testimony count?

Let me know when he testifies. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

29 minutes ago, BNB said:

All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

[DDD Dad 14344]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if he's sworn in, sure, why not.

he has everything to lose by admitting the relationship.  he needs america's help, more than arguably any other "ally".

and no, the ukranian president wasn't the supposed party harmed by this.  i'll go ahead and say the ukranians that lost their lives in the 55 days trying to fight the russians while the aid was held up may have a better case.

Yeah but they're dead so they no longer have standing.

[RomaVicta 29941]

33 minutes ago, BNB said:

I think he should have been censured for it, the guy is an idiot, but I don't think he should be impeached for it.  I don't think it will happen often that someone running against the president has a possible corruption case with another country because he made statements about getting another countries official fired, and his sons company was being investigated by him.

I think I am on the majority side of it.

Dems should have just censured him, then moved onto passing bills.  All the public sees is Dems constantly attacking him and trying to impeach him, while little else is being done to improve our country.

Negged again for lying. You know that Biden was representing the interests of the United States in conditioning the aid on the removal of a corrupt prosecutor. He acted in the open and executing American policy. His act is the antithesis of what Trump did.

Now, if someone can provide evidence that Biden was indeed acting for his son or that he in some other way benefited illegally, then to hell with him and his son.

Enough of you.