House to vote on impeachment

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🙅🏿#^&♂️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

any president inviting a foreign government to interfere in an election.

Not sure what part of this Trump supporters dont accept

Its like being on Tinder and telling your. Wife whats the problem we only talked.. which may be100% accurate.. but OMG what a pathetic defense..

Just like they eventually got the money.. whats the big deal. Yet ignoring why is was with held to start with.. and why congress wasnt aware of it being with held.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

any president inviting a foreign government to interfere in an election.

Interesting. Investigating corruption interferes with an election. I suppose that depends on your personal definition of "interferes."

Not sure what part of this Trump supporters dont accept

I don't "support" Trump, but I do support the defeat of Progressivism, Socialism, and Communism. In that respect, I support the defeat of the Democrats. And I probably don't accept your definition of "interfere." But not sure what you mean by that word.

Its like being on Tinder and telling your. Wife whats the problem we only talked.. which may be100% accurate.. but OMG what a pathetic defense..

Again, interesting. You're a very interesting person with very interesting ideas. The President of the U.S. talking to the President of Ukraine and making a legal request is like being on Tinder.

And didn't know that Trump "defended" his conversation by saying that they only talked.

Just like they eventually got the money.. whats the big deal. Yet ignoring why is was with held to start with.. and why congress wasnt aware of it being with held.

Exactly. They got the money. So Zelensky doesn't have to conduct the investigation. He's got the money. And Trump made it known why the money was withheld. And he spoke to at least one Congressman about it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Exactly. They got the money. So Zelensky doesn't have to conduct the investigation. He's got the money. And Trump made it known why the money was withheld. And he spoke to at least one Congressman about it.

Wow nice kool aid moustache
Completion of the quid pro quo is irrelevant.

Trump's attorneys claim that as president, he is immune from criminal investigation

Got a comment on that postition ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow nice kool aid moustache
Completion of the quid pro quo is irrelevant.

Trump's attorneys claim that as president, he is immune from criminal investigation

Got a comment on that postition ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no point in making a comment to you. I have learned that you are immune from my comments.

[PaulS]

And Trump is saying that the WB id should be revealed - telling people to break the law.

Cesspool.

[scottw]

better get you prescriptions filled and buckle in for 4 more years...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

better get you prescriptions filled and buckle in for 4 more years...

I did take an aleve yesterday for a stiff neck after a long bike ride. 1st pill I think I've taken in about 10 years other than vitamins. Gonna start w/centrum silver soon

Your right in that if the economy holds up, Trump may win another term.

[Pete F.]

If the White House were confident that the soon-to-be-released impeachment inquiry transcripts would exonerate Trump, he wouldn't be panicking.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If the White House were confident that the soon-to-be-released impeachment inquiry transcripts would exonerate Trump, he wouldn't be panicking.

So, going in, the assumption is that Trump is guilty. No doubt that a well choreographed inquiry specifically composed to produce a picture of that assumption is soon-to-be-released.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, going in, the assumption is that Trump is guilty. No doubt that a well choreographed inquiry specifically composed to produce a picture of that assumption is soon-to-be-released.

The first transcripts are out.

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/...DocumentID=757

Perhaps you can read them while listening to this

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The first transcripts are out.

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/...DocumentID=757

The full transcripts were not shown. Only selected excerpts. Selected by whom? Were any of the selected questions asked by Republicans?

I tried to pour through the Yovanovitch selections which were opinions of her perceptions. I couldn't submit myself to try the selected excerpts of McKinley. Like I said, well choreographed.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The full transcripts were not shown. Only selected excerpts. Selected by whom? Were any of the selected questions asked by Republicans?

I tried to pour through the Yovanovitch selections which were opinions of her perceptions. I couldn't submit myself to try the selected excerpts of McKinley. Like I said, well choreographed.

I downloaded both full transcripts with no issue.

[Sea Dangles]

So here is a shocker,PeteF thinks he has uncovered yet even more evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. Thank you for sharing this nothing burger. I am confident it will leave you confused as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Keep in mind
Trump is a genius but you can't see his grades
Trump is healthy but you can't see his medical report
Trump is rich but you can't see his tax returns
Trump is innocent but you can't see the unedited transcript
Trump is honest but you can't question the White House lawyers
Good luck with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[Pete F.]

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well since her 2nd and 3rd points are incorrect
I’ll say she’s full of ..it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2nd point may be a stretch, and 3rd is in dispute. First point is OK and I like the rest of the video. I didn't expect you to approve.

BTW, your five "Trump is" points that we are supposed to keep in mind are full of ..it.

[ReelinRod]

And again, it's obvious that the whistleleaker wasn't motivated by an overarching concern for the nation, he was concerned that his involvement and coordination with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa would be exposed by any investigation into the in Ukraine interference in our 2016 election, which is directly attributable to Chalupa's actions.

It is obvious that the whistleleaker was given a readout of the call by Vindman. After Vindman admitted he gave multiple people copies of the readout, Rep. Jordan asked him who he gave copies to; Schiff immediately shut down questioning and ordered Vindman not to answer, claiming the identity of the whistleleaker was at risk.

Vindman was the genesis of all this and his stated motivation, that he was, "deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the President to subvert U.S. foreign policy" is either a ruse or an act of insubordination.

Doesn't this dumb clerk understand that the President is the sole authority to establish and implement US foreign policy? Whatever Vindman's subjective characterization is of the President's performance during the call, Vindman's opinion of it is of zero consequence or importance.

Vindman's actions, by sharing the "troubles" he had with the call, was and is the real subversion of US foreign policy. That he shared the classified readout of the call with other (yet unnamed) subversives, should be treated as the criminal offense it is, under both civilian law and the UCMJ.


.

[ReelinRod]

To top it all off, nothing the President did was a crime. The US and Ukraine have a treaty to cooperate to investigate crime and Ukraine is compelled to assist when asked . . .

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-docu.../document-text

"The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be self-executing and will not require new legislation.

Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature.

Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State."

The following website, -- https://www.globallegalinsights.com/...ations/ukraine -- explains the legal action of the treaty, especially as it relates to corruption investigations.


That site does not allow copy and paste, a screenshot of pertinent passage follows:

Ukraine is required to assist upon request . . . The President of the United States made that request to the President of Ukraine.

It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden.

And just for fun, let's assume the House does vote out articles and it goes to the Senate . . . Perhaps Quid Pro Joe will be called to testify for the defense, as to his perceived need for Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau and what he believed its powers to be and the requirements for cooperation demanded by the above mentioned treaty.



Just for fun, Quid Pro Joe could be asked if he believes the actions of Burisma, as it relates to his son, would be of interest to Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Bureau as he contemplated it. Now that would be worth watching!


.

[Pete F.]

"It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden."

What's ironic is that the only corruption the Trump administration is concerned with involves political opponents.

Since its first days in office, the Trump administration has exhibited indifference—and at times hostility—toward anti-corruption efforts in U.S. foreign policy. Less than a month after his inauguration, for example, President Trump signed into law a measure repealing a 2010 Obama-era regulation that imposed transparency on the oil and gas industry, a sector that has historically been at very high risk for graft. In the lead-up to the passage of this measure, former Sen. #^&#^&#^&#^& Lugar (R-IN)—a sponsor of the 2010 law authorizing the regulation—warned that repeal would mean “undoing a clear act of moral leadership, turning our back on corruption. This would betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and harm our security.”

Trump’s early action was a portent of things to come. Over the past three years, the White House has slashed funding for vital foreign assistance programs, allowed strongmen to quash popular anti-corruption initiatives, and either ignored or threatened to undercut multilateral transparency initiatives. Even worse, officials have actively ignored massive corruption when politically convenient, such as when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the government of Guatemala despite its recent expulsion of an anti-corruption body or when Trump commended the corrupt governments of Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and Honduras. The administration has even sought to cut the budget of the critical State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, which is tasked with anti-corruption policy, by around 40 percent for the upcoming fiscal year.

This retreat from anti-corruption policies has been paralleled by the president’s unprecedented use of his official position to enrich himself, his family, and his friends. After his election, President Trump refused to divest from his businesses and instead gave control to his sons, a move that transparency advocates question. Foreign officials and corporations have regularly booked rooms in Trump hotels, in what may amount to public attempts to ingratiate themselves with the president. Trump has also used his private properties to conduct official government business, and his administration has announced that the next G-7 summit will be held at Trump’s resort in Doral, Florida, before reversing the decision amid public outcry. He faces three ongoing federal lawsuits for violations of the emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from receiving gifts or payments from foreign officials. Yet, even U.S. officials have used Trump’s properties for questionable reasons, including up to 40 trips to his Scottish resort taken by members of the U.S. Air Force.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"It's ironic that Ukraine's "Anti-Corruption Bureau" was established with he assistance of Quid Pro Joe Biden."

What's ironic is that the only corruption the Trump administration is concerned with involves political opponents.

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not all equal, but even non-trump corruption is worth looking at, at least to most people.

WDMSO, they were chanting “impeach the morherf*cker” from day one. i’m not saying he’s innocent, but i’m saying they are never going to stop digging, whether there’s reasonable cause or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not all equal, but even non-trump corruption is worth looking at, at least to most people.

WDMSO, they were chanting “impeach the morherf*cker” from day one. i’m not saying he’s innocent, but i’m saying they are never going to stop digging, whether there’s reasonable cause or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That may so . But what has he done . These things aren't made up they actually happened. Hes done it to himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

CAN YOU SAY POTUS..

Or all corruption is equal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We no longer have co-equal branches of government? Corruption in opposition to POTUS is less important than corruption of POTUS? Corruption is not important if it is "not as"?

Are you the judge of what is not as important?

Corruption in our political leaders, whether they are Presidents, Senators, Vice Presidents, judges, bureaucrats, is important to root out and eliminate. President is a temporary office. Career politicians and bureaucrats and judges are here far longer and have a far greater cumulative effect in terms of corruption or otherwise.

right. potential corruption behind efforts to un-do a fair presidential election, nothing to see there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump.

Plenty of it, and it is not hard to find.

All you have to do is look at what Trump whines/projects about and there it is in his administration.

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Plenty of it, and it is not hard to find.

All you have to do is look at what Trump whines/projects about and there it is in his administration.

Libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and classical liberals believe in protecting whistleblowers to expose government corruption. Trump Republicans believe in exposing whistleblowers to protect government corruption.

As I said, "Ironic like the only corruption your concerned with is Trump."