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.
It's normal, even desirable, for our country's foreign relations to involve the President (or his subordinates) to be fishing for anything they can get, for the country. That's what we want them to do. (In fact, considering candidate Trump's frequent bloviating on his world's greatest negotiating skills, you can argue that that's specifically what he, individually, was elected for.) Normal quid pro quo.
Bu what Trump did, was to try to use his position, to demand something to help him, personally. That's the distinction that makes it abuse of office.
Do any of the Trump voters here that may disagree with what I said above have a valid argument to make against it?
Of course, it is going to the Senate. Which it should.
It's a shakedown. Trump and his team were pressuring Ukraine to interfere in U.S. elections.
Why do you people continue to flip the script? It was the Democrats who worked with foreigners to interfere in the elections. Hilary and the DNC worked with both the Russians and Ukraine. The Steele dossier was paid for by Hilary and the DNC and used Russians to dig up dirt on Trump. The DNC worked with the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump and his campaign
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
But do you people care? No
It was Joe Biden's quid pro quo, using a billion dollars to blackmail the Ukraine. Biden was interfering in a criminal investigation.
But do you people care? No
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
It's a coverup, obstruction of justice. That's why the actual transcript of the Trump's call is on a secure code word server. It's why an inaccurate memo rather than the actual transcript was released.
It's an abuse of power that undermines our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government.
Just because Republicans don't give a damn about their Constitutional responsibility to preserve the republic, does't mean the Democrats have to abandon the nation as well.
With all the massive amounts of leaked calls between Trump and foreign leaders, why would you find it odd that we would try and move the transcripts of these to a more secure server? The Trump admin needs to try and protect transcripts because we have so many leakers running around in government.
It's normal, even desirable, for our country's foreign relations to involve the President (or his subordinates) to be fishing for anything they can get, for the country. That's what we want them to do. (In fact, considering candidate Trump's frequent bloviating on his world's greatest negotiating skills, you can argue that that's specifically what he, individually, was elected for.) Normal quid pro quo.
Bu what Trump did, was to try to use his position, to demand something to help him, personally. That's the distinction that makes it abuse of office.
Do any of the Trump voters here that may disagree with what I said above have a valid argument to make against it?
Looking into possible corruption by Joe Biden does not help Trump. Explain to me how it was going to help Trump, personally?
Looking into possible corruption by Joe Biden does not help Trump. Explain to me how it was going to help Trump, personally?
Come on. What could possibly be more valuable to a political candidate than a public announcement that a foreign country is criminally investigating the other candidate for corruption?
If people are going to be intentionally obtuse to run interference for Trump, at least put a little effort in so it isn't so transparent.
True, but left unchecked I would think it a certainty that the Republicans would spend time calling irrelevant witnesses and intentionally trying to gum up the process. If we see evidence that Schiff is actually abusing his veto power, then we can have another conversation. Until then, I see it as a safety valve in case known Trump bootlickers like Nunes and Jordan try to derail the inquiry. Nothing more.
Why do you assume that the repubs would try to "gum up the process?" That's not justice, to deny equal process to both sides, just because you concoct a conspiracy theory that one side will try to "gum up the process." Just read what you posted.
Why do you assume that the repubs would try to "gum up the process?" That's not justice, to deny equal process to both sides, just because you concoct a conspiracy theory that one side will try to "gum up the process." Just read what you posted.
Let's turn this around: Why do you assume Schiff will abuse his veto power?
If you thought even for a second that the Democrats would give the Republicans untrammeled power to control the impeachment inquiry, you're kidding yourself. The process that is set up is similar to the process used with Nixon and Clinton.
Of course, given that you are still pushing a long-debunked narrative concerning Biden blackmailing Ukraine to interfere with an investigation for personal gain, I don't actually expect an intellectually honest response.
Come on. What could possibly be more valuable to a political candidate than a public announcement that a foreign country is criminally investigating the other candidate for corruption?
If people are going to be intentionally obtuse to run interference for Trump, at least put a little effort in so it isn't so transparent.
There was no public announcement. The content of the phone call was kept quiet and confidential, until some Trump-hater decided to break the law and blab this to the whole world.
If the investigation showed no corruption by Biden, then no one would know. How would that benefit Trump, personally? It wouldn't.
I think secretly you all know that an investigation into the Joe and Hunter Biden deals will show a pattern of corruption, and influence peddling, to turn Joe's position as VP into a corrupt money making opportunity. That's why you people phrase it as "digging up dirt on Biden," because you fear it will do just that
Let's turn this around: Why do you assume Schiff will abuse his veto power?
He already has. He has already refused to call witnesses that the republicans wanted to call, and stopped republicans from asking questions of witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
If you thought even for a second that the Democrats would give the Republicans untrammeled power to control the impeachment inquiry, you're kidding yourself. The process that is set up is similar to the process used with Nixon and Clinton.
You cannot tolerate equality. It should be set up exactly like Nixon's and Clinton's, but it's not.
There was no public announcement. The content of the phone call was kept quiet and confidential, until some Trump-hater decided to break the law and blab this to the whole world.
If the investigation showed no corruption by Biden, then no one would know. How would that benefit Trump, personally? It wouldn't
I guess you slept through the statements from Morrison, Sondland, and Taylor confirming that Trump was leveraging the military aid to try to compel Zelenskyy to publicly announce a criminal investigation into Biden.
He already has. He has already refused to call witnesses that the republicans wanted to call, and stopped republicans from asking questions of witnesses.
Which witnesses did they want to call and why is their testimony relevant? The only thing I've seen reported is that Schiff would not allow inquiries designed to unmask the identity of the whistleblower, which is perfectly fine under the circumstances.
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.
