No, I’m quibbling over “letter”. She doesn’t say that she knew what was in the letter. She says that she knew what was in the call, which she did because both Trump and Giuliani admitted it.
Not only that but she also said “he didn’t even know” it was (supposedly) wrong as in “no intent” and didn’t that defense work for Hillary? I do believe it did and she went on to get the Dem nominination for President.
Every time a Democrat poll opens their mouth exposes their hypocrisy and double standard of “its good for us but not for you” authoritarian mentality and that’s why we have to get these people out of office and positions of power.
Well, the funny thing is that no one has yet stated what law Trump was supposed to have broken. Its more like “we really, really, really don’t like what he said…as we interpret it”. Its not like anyone has cited a statute.
Thanks I’ll fix my mistake.
So, are you suggesting she was relying on trump’s words to “know what was in the call”??
Because trump also told her it was a PERFECT call. Is she relying on his words or not??
^*
Here you go. There are a number of articles that also spell it out quite clearly. And remember, a specific law does not need to have been broken for him to be impeached. What he did was wrong. Period. To those of us that actually care about this country, and what our elected employees do with the power we grant to them, we see that this matters and it is WRONG!
Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government
Bribery
Misappropriation
Conspiracy
Time to prosecute the people responsible for changing the “whistleblower” rules and to prosecute the leakers.
Strike three enough is enough.
An impeachment is about violation of the oath of office which is why the founders wisely used the vague language “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Trump’s supporters have already established the irrelevance of law to the Presidency by their insistence that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
Keep spinning.
What do you think she admitted?
You don’t know that. All you know is ORANGE MAN BAD!!!
^*
2 Likes
What law did he break? He beat Hillary in the election and they have been attempting to over throw the election ever since. 
Banana Republic stuff.
2 Likes
I do know that. What he did was unethical, immoral, and was as clear of an example of his taking advantage of the power granted to him for personal gain as any possibly put forth. You may not care and believe ORANGE MAN IS GOD, but for me, this is repugnant and reprehensible, and he has lost whatever privilege granted to him by being President.
I care about the rule of law, how the President, as an employee of the people conducts himself, and about integrity. What do you care about?
2 Likes
They are so invested in Trump at this point that he could murder their kids in front of them and they’d still be defending him.
1 Like
I seriously believe that to be the case with many of them. It is a cult. And this is what years and years of propaganda does to some people. We get to witness it in real time. It is astonishing and completely bonkers.
1 Like
No, those who really care about this country don’t want it torn apart by this utter farce. From the article you reference:
“While the White House’s publicly-released notes of the call show the US president made no direct mention of offering aid in exchange for Zelensky’s assistance in probing former Vice President Joe Biden, …”
That’s right, there is not explicit offer of an exchange for an investigation. It is all reading into it and assuming, because Trump is so bad int their eyes, that there must have been a quid pro quo. If you want a real quid pro quo, go to where Biden demands the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor in exchange for a billion dollars of our tax money. He brags about doing it.
Here we are talking about an actual impeachment based on reading between the lines by people who clearly hated Trump before he was even elected. You need someone really good at connecting the dots to put that over. Perhaps Glenn Beck is available to lead the hearing?
As far as actual referenced crimes the article says:
“The most obvious way in which Trump could have violated the law is by soliciting material campaign aid from a foreign government, which expressly violates the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.”
So we art talking about impeaching a President over a campaign violation. If you want to see the hurdles that would have to meet, just go to the Mueller report on the section about the meeting at Trump tower.
First, you are going to have to show that this was related to his campaign and that it was not a search for actual facts that should concern all Americans. If you let the three year search for collusion pass the smell test with you, this one should go by easily.
Then you have the question as to whether an investigation is what was meant by that statute, whether the search for information can be criminalized under the 1st amendment, and whether Trump knew what he was doing was illegal. Then you need to establish the dollar value.
And finally, there is an alternative basis for withholding the funds discussed in the very conversation involved…namely that other countries are not paying their share
No, there is nothing there. Impeachment by innuendo doesn’t do it, no matter how much one pretends they are doing it “for the country” instead of for “personal political gain”.
2 Likes
“Perfect” is subjective. There is no question that both Trump and Giuliani said that they asked Ukraine to look into Biden.
I see you are using the “If we repeat the lie that Biden threatened Ukraine to get Shokin fired because he was investigating Hunter Biden often enough, it will magically become the truth” defense.
2 Likes
Better to look now that when the Presidentail campaign actually begins in the middle of November.
Quite presumptuous to think Joe had it in the bag.
You cannot show political motive.
There does not have to be an explicit offer for an impeachment investigation. Nor does there even have to be a quid-pro-quo for one either. But anyone without blinders on can clearly see exactly what Trump was doing here. He was NOT acting in the interests of the United States. He was acting in the interest of Donald Trump. Even going as far as to assign his personal attorney as the point man for this conspiracy theory rabbit hole chase. It is wrong Doug. Period. THIS IS WRONG!
No, it is not reading in to it. The words are there for everyone to read for themselves. And this, remember, is the BEST version the White House could provide. About 8 minutes of a 30 minute call. They continue to deny the full transcript from being turned over to Congress.
Seriously? So, your position is that Biden wanted a corrupt prosecutor removed from office in Ukraine so they could then appoint a MORE ethical and diligent prosecutor in his place to investigate corruption MORE thoroughly? And this is somehow a scandal in your eyes? Do you even hear yourself? Forget the plethora of evidence above and beyond this, that completely obliterates this asinine conspiracy theory, but that fact alone makes your position complete untenable.
No, here we are talking about the President of the United States using the power of the office granted to him by we the people, for his own personal electoral gain. I am not okay with this. I am shocked that you are completely fine with this behavior. THIS IS WRONG!
You asked what crimes were committed, and I showed you what potential crimes were committed. Again, there does not even need to be a statutory crime to have been committed, even though there likely were. Again, THIS IS WRONG! You should not be okay with any of this.
1 Like
Your are suffering form Democrat Derangement Syndrome…or DDS. No where did Pelosi say she knew about it at the time. I think if she had…there would have already been a movement to impeach. However, I believe she was talking about last week when the president told her it was a perfect phone call, and there was noting to it. After the transcript memo was released…and it was clear it was not a perfect phone call.
This is quite a reach for you to imply she had it in July after the phone call was made.
1 Like
You saw what you imagined, not what I said. I said there was a quid pro quo based on Biden not releasing our money to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor. Biden has bragged about doing that. You can find the video online. I said nothing about his motive for wanting the prosecutor fired.
