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.
The 300-page report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee makes the case that Trump misused the power of his office and, in the course of their investigation, obstructed Congress by stonewalling the proceedings. Based on two months of investigation, the report contains evidence and testimony from current and former U.S. officials.
“The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection," said Chairman Adam Schiff in the report's preface.
There's nothing at all wrong with that. Where is the allegation of wrongdoing? Where's the "bribery" they have been talking about?
The 300-page report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee makes the case that Trump misused the power of his office and, in the course of their investigation, obstructed Congress by stonewalling the proceedings. Based on two months of investigation, the report contains evidence and testimony from current and former U.S. officials.
“The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection," said Chairman Adam Schiff in the report's preface.
In doing so, "the President placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States, sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,” the report said. https://news.yahoo.com/house-report-...100255628.html
Haven't had time to read the 300-pager yet.
What did they say?
Trump did XXX that the Democrats don't like?
Reported to them by "anonymous sources" who seem to have a habit of gross exaggeration or outright lying, whom the Democrats have been careful to prevent from testifying?
Trump did things that are required by U.S. law (example: Encouraging foreign countries to investigate corruption taking place inside those countries? Investigations that might involve finding corruption on Americans who can affect Trump politically, and so the Democrats insist he's somehow not allowed to obey that particular anti-corruption law if there's any chance that any part of the outcome might benefit him?)
Trump did things that are controversial, but have been done by every president since George Washington with no calls for investigation much less impeachment?
In other words, did the Democrat issue some report making the same old strident claims about the same old activities (either commonplace and long accepted, or outright falsified) they have been screeching about for the last three or more years, getting their noses rubbed in it every time?
Or is there something new in this 300-page report?
Cliffnotes: Trump abused the power of his position for personal gain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Haven't had time to read the 300-pager yet.
What did they say?
Trump did XXX that the Democrats don't like?
Reported to them by "anonymous sources" who seem to have a habit of gross exaggeration or outright lying, whom the Democrats have been careful to prevent from testifying?
Trump did things that are required by U.S. law (example: Encouraging foreign countries to investigate corruption taking place inside those countries? Investigations that might involve finding corruption on Americans who can affect Trump politically, and so the Democrats insist he's somehow not allowed to obey that particular anti-corruption law?
Trump did things that are controversial, but have been done by every president since George Washington with no calls for investigation much less impeachment?
In other words, did the Democrat issue some report making the same old strident claims about the same old activities (either commonplace or outright falsified) they have been screeching about for the last three or more years, getting their noses rubbed in it every time?
Or is there something new in this 300-page report?
In the quantitative sense, there's more evidence for this misdeed than there was for either Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment. Trump himself is on record as saying he did it. In terms of magnitude of the crime, it is also more serious than either of the preceding impeachments.
In the quantitative sense, there's more evidence for this misdeed than there was for either Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment. Trump himself is on record as saying he did it. In terms of magnitude of the crime, it is also more serious than either of the preceding impeachments.
Actually your post is factually inaccurate. I was there.
If this gets to the Senate, we'll find out what they have to say and determine if any of it is relevant later because Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff will definitely be called and they can't refuse.
Hunter Biden, what would he know about Trump's behavior? Hearsay, like the rest of us.
As to Schiff, he could introduce evidence, such as say, for example, AT&T and Verizon phone records establishing Giuliani’s frequent contact with the Trump administration and the various players in this Ukraine bribery and extortion scam. Or he could summarize the testimony heard in the various hearings.
Apparently, quite a few folks were involved in Trump's bribery and extortion scam -- Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pence, Perry, Pompeo, ... but Schiff was not one of them.
In the quantitative sense, there's more evidence for this misdeed than there was for either Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment. Trump himself is on record as saying he did it. In terms of magnitude of the crime, it is also more serious than either of the preceding impeachments.
That's false. There's no evidence supporting any "misdeed" given that the action in question is not inherently illegal. You can prove the action happened, but there's no evidence proving intent, thus no evidence of any "misdeed".
In the Nixon and Clinton cases, the actions involved were inherently illegal, and there was sufficient proof on both accounts which is why there was bipartisan support behind both impeachment inquiries where there is none for this instance due to a complete and total lack of evidence of wrongdoing.
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.
