Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the transcript. Where did he ask for "dirt"? The way I am reading it he asked for an investigation on illegal activities. I don't see anything wrong with that. Also, where is this implied threats? I am not reading that as well. Which sentences or paragraphs are he implying anything in?
These inconvenient truths, and also others, are why Nancy Pelosi wants this handled behind closed doors as much as possible.
Trump asked Ukraine's current president for dirt on the Bidens that he could use in his forthcoming 2020 campaign for reelection, and he implied that if the dirt wasn't provided, Ukraine would not receive military hardware and funds already promised from our country. That's bribery and/or blackmail, and involving a foreign country in our election for purposes of influencing the outcome of that election is very, very illegal. Trump openly admitted to all this, indicating that he clearly was clueless as to the illegality. He released what seems to be a partial transcript of the call which make it evident this occurred. Now he is flailing about, trying to save his neck.
A good many other present and former Trump advisors and cabinet members have been in or are in Italy this week and last week, on our dime, for unknown purposes. This travel seems to have been very hastily brought about. A number of Russian oligarchs are also in Italy at present (or last week). Coincidental?? Maybe. But I doubt that the Trump-ites - or the oligarchs - are there solely to sight-see.
This can be a defense in some situations. Can you imagine a President of the United States arguing that he should not be impeached because he does not understand the Constitutional limitations of his Office?
While reading about Watergate, was interested in the timeline once the House Judiciary Committee launched their hearings.
1971 - White House Plumbers" broke into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.
1972 - Watergate break-in and subsequent investigation, etc.
1973 - Senate Watergate Committee starts hearings and "Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox appointed to oversee investigation into possible presidential impropriety." Trump fires Cox and others. Leon Jaworski is appointed as special prosecutor. Agnew leaves. Ford is confirmed as VP. The fight over the tapes ensues.
1974 - Edited transcripts of the tapes are released, and on May 9, impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee. By July 30, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee has passed Articles of Impeachment.
In August 1974, the "smoking gun" tape is revealed, documenting Nixon and Haldeman cooking up a plan to block investigations and by the end of the month, Republicans meet with Nixon and he resigns.
If Nixon had not resigned, the next step would have been the House Judiciary Committee writing a report explaining to the House in detail why it recommended impeachment.
Then on to the House Rules Committee to get a resolution fixing ground rules for debate on the floor. That might take a week or more.
The House would have likely debated the articles of impeachment about two weeks, maybe more. Perhaps there would have been amendments. Who knows?
If it passed the House, it would go to the Senate where the trial was expected to last about two months. But first there would have been a delay to give Nixon's lawyers time to prepare his defense.
Currently, we are not even at the House Judiciary impeachment hearings yet, we are still at the inquiry stage. How long this stage takes is anybody's guess. Might be months as they wrangle over subpoenas and so forth.
Meanwhile, Trump is still on the loose . Who knows what will turn up or what he will do while all this is going on.
But say it changes from an inquiry to a House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing right around the year end break. It might take a few weeks or a few months for them to do their due diligence.
Say it ends with articles of impeachment. Then the the rules committee has it for a week or two then the entire House takes it up.
By now, it might be February or even March. Then Trump's attorneys have time to prepare a defense before the Senate takes it up.
Moscow Mitch and the Republicans will likely try to limit debate. But it is unrealistic to expect it to be less than several weeks at least. Now we are in April, or even May.
So all this is going on during the primary season.
You can take it from there.
Nancy Pelosi made it clear she isn't going to waste time, in her morning news conference with Schiff. I think if it plays out and Trump doesn't resign (or have a coronary), it will go by the above outline, but likely much more rapidly.
People aren't willing to wait very long for this to resolve. If Trump is as corrupt as it appears, boot him out - legally, but swiftly. Ditto any and all of his cohorts. We're out of patience.
Perfect example of just how low IQ Trump's base it...
Last week, Donald Trump LITERALLY said he brought up Biden on the phone call with the Ukrainian president to discuss corruption.....yet 6 in 10 Trumpers don't believe Trump brought up Biden on the phone call with the Ukrainian president.
Nancy Pelosi made it clear she isn't going to waste time, in her morning news conference with Schiff. I think if it plays out and Trump doesn't resign (or have a coronary), it will go by the above outline, but likely much more rapidly.
People aren't willing to wait very long for this to resolve. If Trump is as corrupt as it appears, boot him out - legally, but swiftly. Ditto any and all of his cohorts. We're out of patience.
That’s not how it goes
There is no crime . Asking the Ukraine president to look into corruption by a Dem candidate is nothing. We might as well impeach everybody
If it moves on to the Senate most Repubs and some Dems will vote acquittal. And that’s the end of that
This can be a defense in some situations. Can you imagine a President of the United States arguing that he should not be impeached because he does not understand the Constitutional limitations of his Office?
Is ignorance of a crime a defense in this case??
Who advised Trump about this? Anyone? My guess is that he just shot off his mouth, as he is well known to do, regardless of whether or not his failing brain was in gear.
There is no crime . Asking the Ukraine president to look into corruption by a Dem candidate is nothing. We might as well impeach everybody
If it moves on to the Senate most Repubs and some Dems will vote acquittal. And that’s the end of that
Asking Ukraine to investigate possible corruption is not a crime unless it is intended to provide information to change the course of an election. The "favor" also included a very lightly veiled threat to withhold promised military aid.
Quid pro quo. Look it up.
In addition to asking a foreign country to interfere in our election, Trump engaged in bribery or perhaps blackmail. Take your pick.
Here's the timeline for those who are still bewildered.
Trump puts a hold on military aid to Ukraine that Congress has appropriated.
Giuliani travels to the Ukraine several times over two months trying to get something stirred up.
There's nothing to stir up. The investigation is over. It was determined that Biden was not involved in any corruption. He joined the board several years after the incident that was investigated.
The prosecutor that was fired for incompetence and corruption was at the insistence of numerous entities. We could go on, but the bottom line is there was nothing to investigate about Biden.
So Trump, apparently frustrated with Giuliani's ineptitude, tries to get something going.
During a phone conversation the Ukraine President brings up military equipment he would like the U.S. to provide and Trump responds with, “I would like you to do us a favor though,”
There is absolutely no national interest in dragging Biden's son's name through the mud.
Trump is asking a foreign nation to help him with his campaign.
Who advised Trump about this? Anyone? My guess is that he just shot off his mouth, as he is well known to do, regardless of whether or not his failing brain was in gear.
While Rudy isn't in good shape, he once was an attorney prosecuting mob cases where there often was no clear quid quo pro.
He had to provided some advice along these lines. The Ukraine conspiracy theories were his baby. Wasn't he read into the call?
And Trump still screwed it up.
That's been the motif of the Trump Presidency from the beginning.
While Rudy isn't in good shape, he once was an attorney prosecuting mob cases where there often was no clear quid quo pro.
He had to provided some advice along these lines. The Ukraine conspiracy theories were his baby. Wasn't he read into the call?
And Trump still screwed it up.
That's been the motif of the Trump Presidency from the beginning.
He ... simply ... cannot ... understand.
I suspect he understands, he just doesn't care.
He has always gotten away with whatever and likely imagines he will bully, bluff, and threaten his way through this as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
