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 interesting thing about this is it shows this was a premeditated plan by Trump, not just some offhand remark during a phone call. And he can't claim that he didn't know it was wrong, since so many people in his administration tried to stop it.
The interesting thing about this is it shows this was a premeditated plan by Trump, not just some offhand remark during a phone call. And he can't claim that he didn't know it was wrong, since so many people in his administration tried to stop it.
The other interesting thing is that the original emails released were heavily redacted. If Trump's withholding of aid was so legit, why the secrecy?
Sure. And when a mobster says "You have a beautiful family. It would be a shame if something were to happen to them", that's not a threat.
It isn't a threat. Not in the black and white definition of the law.
The simple facts of the aid to Ukraine are:
The deadline to provide the aid was Sep 30, 2019.
The aid was delivered Sep 11, 2019.
Sep 11 falls BEFORE Sep 30 on the calendar, therefore aid to Ukraine was delivered before the deadline, therefore there was no delay in aid being delivered, thus the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 was not violated in any way, per the Ukraine aid package with a deadline of Sep 30, 2019.
Now I realize that you think "oh, we know what he meant" constitutes proof of a crime, but no crime got committed. No aid was withheld, no favor was done, and the person that was apparently the "victim" of the non-existent crime has repeatedly and quite consistently claimed that he was never aware of any withholding, or coercion, or anything of the sort.
Yeah, it may have the look of being sorta skeevy, but according to the black and white of things, nothing illegal took place. That's why McConnell has called it the thinnest, most partisan and baseless impeachment of all time. The charges are made up crimes that make "annoying House Democrats" sound like something legit, and are largely baseless.
They should have gone for censure for presenting the appearance of impropriety. It would have stuck, they would have retained the narrative forever, and that would have been that. Instead, they went for trying to make presenting the appearance of impropriety a crime, when it isn't. That's the fail, and eventually it will be discarded as such.
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.
