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.
His actions speaks volumes not to mention what he says he means it. You and the rest of the conservatives laugh it off thinking he’s joking. He’s not.
Nice deflect though.
And there's the other mindset. A different opinion just can't be possible. His actions " speak volumes" only if your mind accepts that there is some sort of hidden message, underlying intent, or perhaps a sinister foundation.
We are all constantly bombarded with information . Your belief in certain and specific information becomes knowledge. That your belief in information is not the same as what others may believe needs to be accepted. That's what makes the world go around.
Obama's mediocre-at-best foreign policy in Ukraine doesn't somehow negate Trump's wrongful act in leveraging tax-payer funded foreign aid in exchange for a domestic political favor.
Imagine your kid got a D- on his or her report card and tried to justify it by telling you Tommy from down the street was late for school twice last week.
I really want to say that you guys are too smart to accept tangential nonsense like this, but I'm not so sure...
It isn't a mater of negating Trump's acts. it is all about perspective and perception. Over half the people in the country( if you believe polls like Quinnipiac ) now say he should not be impeached.
Your analogy with Tommy is just plan foolish .
Some of us are smart enough to have existed in the real world and survive quite well.
Everyone who testified said they were told or became aware that Trump's was leveraging tax-payer funded foreign aid in exchange for a domestic political favor.
That testimony was hearsay, presumption, or opinion only though, there was no factual evidence as to Trump's intent and that's what you'd have to prove in order to have any kind of wrongdoing. Saying "I think this is why he did it" isn't evidence that the person acted for those reasons. To date, there is no evidence as to what Trump's intent was.....and the burden of proof is on "you" to prove specific illicit intent.
Without proof, the presumption is that his intent was his stated intent, to get the Ukrainians to prove their alleged newfound commitment to fighting corruption because that was in the best interest of the US.
Now I understand that partisans don't require proof for them to believe the worst, but if this were a legal issue, that's what would be required thus IMO that's what is required for legitimacy here. Obviously legitimate grounds aren't required for impeachment, just a vote, but without those legitimate grounds, it's VERY likely to end poorly for those pushing the cynical political nonsense.
That testimony was hearsay, presumption, or opinion only though, there was no factual evidence as to Trump's intent and that's what you'd have to prove in order to have any kind of wrongdoing. Saying "I think this is why he did it" isn't evidence that the person acted for those reasons. To date, there is no evidence as to what Trump's intent was.....and the burden of proof is on "you" to prove specific illicit intent.
Without proof, the presumption is that his intent was his stated intent, to get the Ukrainians to prove their alleged newfound commitment to fighting corruption because that was in the best interest of the US.
Now I understand that partisans don't require proof for them to believe the worst, but if this were a legal issue, that's what would be required thus IMO that's what is required for legitimacy here. Obviously legitimate grounds aren't required for impeachment, just a vote, but without those legitimate grounds, it's VERY likely to end poorly for those pushing the cynical political nonsense.
Why didn't Trump allow the other witnesses who were on the call (Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al.) testify so they could clear his name and tell what really happened if that was the case?
Why didn't Trump allow the other witnesses who were on the call (Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al.) testify so they could clear his name and tell what really happened if that was the case?
Because he didn't have to. House Democrats were bringing up wood chips scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to make a case against him, it would have been foolish to work with them at all. There was no scenario where they weren't going to bring impeachment articles against him, that decision was made the moment they took control over the House, he had nothing to gain by waiving his rights.
Because he didn't have to. House Democrats were bringing up wood chips scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to make a case against him, it would have been foolish to work with them at all. There was no scenario where they weren't going to bring impeachment articles against him, that decision was made the moment they took control over the House, he had nothing to gain by waiving his rights.
Sure he didn't have to. But it sure would have helped enforce his "innocence." You'd think an innocent man would pull out every witness to shout it from the rooftops.
Why didn't Trump allow the other witnesses who were on the call (Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al.) testify so they could clear his name and tell what really happened if that was the case?
They could have defied him, just like the others did....But just like the others, there was nothing, so why?
Sure he didn't have to. But it sure would have helped enforce his "innocence." You'd think an innocent man would pull out every witness to shout it from the rooftops.
Not in the least. He's presumed to be innocent, why help those who are attempting to spin your every move into an excuse to impeach? An innocent man can easily end up in prison if they were foolish enough to work with a corrupt prosecutor too much. The ONLY goal that House Democrats had in this whole ordeal was to find any excuse to impeach, playing along with them would have only served to give them ammunition.
As we're finding out now, it was infinitely better to just let them impeach and sign their political death warrants. Trump will coast to re-election now and those currently in charge of the House will be out of power soon with them almost certainly losing the majority after the 2020 elections.
In many ways, and most likely accidentally, Trump gave them just enough rope to hang themselves.
Why didn't Trump allow the other witnesses who were on the call (Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al.) testify so they could clear his name and tell what really happened if that was the case?
According to Trump supporters, it's because Hillary, Obama, or Biden did something wrong.
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.
