Pelosi directs House Democrats to proceed with articles of impeachment against Trump

[nota bene]

Diminish him? I wouldn't lower myself to that.

But this is precisely what you do when you offer nothing else but vulgar ad homs and insults.

 

[RedAkston]

Do you really believe that? What kind of deluded reality are you in?

When it comes to the QPQ, the fact remains that Trump never raised the question of "corruption" with Zelinsky until Biden announced his campaign. There's also zero evidence Trump has any interest in the Ukrainians investigating anything other than events involving his Democratic opponents, so the idea that the military hold was about some sincere concern about corruption is just not credible.

Sondland testified the WH meeting was conditioned on the Ukraine making a public commitment to investigating the Biden's and the DNC, and that itself is truly corrupt enough on it's own.

Mulvaney's little slip in front of the press was an outright confession, no matter how hard Trump supporters might try to gaslight it and as not meaning what we all clearly heard.

And if all that weren't bad enough, the first reaction of the WH to its knowledge of a WB compliant, was to withhold the compliant, and then release the military aid just one day after it was drafted and Congress began asking questions about Giuliani. Which is like trying to put a TV you just stole back in the department store window when the cops are coming.

There was a QPQ. You can pretend not to see it, but we're not that stupid.

I see you're ignoring the fact that Zelensky, who ran on rooting out corruption, had just won the election. But in your mind Trump all of a sudden wanted the actions of a VP at the time, who has admitted to actual QPQ, investigated by the guy who ran on rooting this type of stuff out. You're more upset that QPQ was supposedly used by Trump, and which has yet to be proven, than you are that his "political rival" actually did use QPQ and has admitted as such. Wow.

 

[RedAkston]

Again, you're just gaslighting.

We all saw the transcript and Trump directly asks for an investigation into the Bidens.

So where's the QPQ? Where in the transcript does he say that he will withhold money unless Zelensky investigates? I'll save you some time, he doesn't say that, therefore no QPQ. But let's not forget that Biden, who actually did commit QPQ and has admitted it, shouldn't be investigated? Up is down and down is up.

 

[Athanasius68]

If they did, they were wrong and should pay the price. But hiring a private citizen is a far cry from bribing a foreign government to bring the weight of the government upon our election.

Its not "if" they did- they did. Mr. Steele is an Englishman and was hired by the Clinton campaign to seek out Russians to get dirt of Trump.
And then that dirt was used by the Obama Admin in court.
The Obama Admin also obtained info on Trump from Australia.
We all know this to be true.

And what 'bribes?" Biden said what he said. H Biden worked where he worked.

 

[Obscurity]

ROTFLOL... Democrats and their Goebbels Media continue with their Trump Retardation Syndrome idiocy.

November 8, 2016 obviously stung really, really bad.

View attachment 67269359

November 2018 stung you lot even harder.

This is what we elected the people's house for.

To hold this insane geriatric and his theocratic handlers to task for their abuses of power.

And, while I think they are moving too quickly, they are doing JUST THAT.

Enjoy the breadstick.

 

[Athanasius68]

A) Lethal aid to the Ukraine was withheld by the U.S. under Obama because the Ukraine did not meet the anti-corruption tests mandated by Congress in the authorization. As such, the worry was that the lethal aid would be sold by corrupt officials on the black market and end up in terrorist hands.

All you are citing is a policy dispute. A weak reason for an impeachment.

B) Biden had no worries about being investigated because there is no hint of wrongdoing. But since you bing it up, isn't it interesting that "anti-corruption" Trump waited years -- until polls showed that Biden would wallop Trump in an election before asking Zelensky to investigate him? I'm sure that was just another coincidence.

Trump was quick to release the transcripts and has been saying there was nothing wrong with his talk. Maybe he too saw nothing wrong with he said.
Trump shouldn't have said what he said-- true. But at the end of the day, the aid was released and no investigation required. Bad thoughts are another weak reason for an impeachment.

 

[Obscurity]

So where's the QPQ? Where in the transcript does he say that he will withhold money unless Zelensky investigates? I'll save you some time, he doesn't say that, therefore no QPQ. But let's not forget that Biden, who actually did commit QPQ and has admitted it, shouldn't be investigated? Up is down and down is up.

The QPQ was on the meeting and is confirmed via Sondland's Testimony, and Mulveney admitting it on television. Does that not count as evidence?

As far as Biden is concerned, you need to jump through some mental gymnastics to convince me that firing a corrupt prosecutor who was NOT actively investigating corruption, Shoken, is somehow a conflict of interest, when, the new prosecutor would far more likely investigate corruption, meaning Biden's ties to burisma, if they were illicit, would most likely come under new and enhanced scurtiny.

Moreover, you need to convince me that Shoken has no axe to grind after being ousted for his corrupt activities.

Go.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes, Trump used that as an excuse against critics who showed that the Trump Admin completely dropped the ball with Puerto Rico, resulting in over 3,000 deaths. Meanwhile, Trump praises corrupt dictators all over the world.

More policy disputes.
Let the public resolve all this on Election day.

 

[Obscurity]

I see you're ignoring the fact that Zelensky, who ran on rooting out corruption, had just won the election. But in your mind Trump all of a sudden wanted the actions of a VP at the time, who has admitted to actual QPQ, investigated by the guy who ran on rooting this type of stuff out. You're more upset that QPQ was supposedly used by Trump, and which has yet to be proven, than you are that his "political rival" actually did use QPQ and has admitted as such. Wow.

Let's establish this:

Do Criminals or those abusing power admit they are comitting those illicit actions or do they generally say "I'm not murdering you" while murdering someone?

Does common sense not exist anymore?

 

[sjmay]

Let's establish this:

Do Criminals or those abusing power admit they are comitting those illicit actions or do they generally say "I'm not murdering you" while murdering someone?

Does common sense not exist anymore?

Not in Washington, not in 30% of the voting population on each side.

Let's talk common sense, you have 16 witnesses, all directly asked if they had proof or knowledge, of a qpq, extortion, or bribery. ALL OF THEM SAY NO. You have the MAIN PRINCIPALS, saying, there was no such thing.

Where's the common sense when you disregard what your own witnesses testify to?

 

[Obscurity]

More policy disputes.
Let the public resolve all this on Election day.

No. Impeachment exists for this reason. Because it sets precedent that this is acceptable behavior. It's almost like NO Trump supporter has read any of the federalist papers or the discussions about impeachment and WHY the founders put it in the constitution. Moreover, the entirety of the 2020 election has now been poisoned by this. Trump's PACS are already running ads about Burisma, meaning the smear is already complete, bargain or not.

And that is the most damning part of this whole fiasco. Trump is a loose cannon and an impulsive president. His actions have already damned us to not trust the 2020 outcome unless it's somehow confirmed legit. The public's trust is damaged. No Trump supporter will trust a fair election ousted him if he loses; and no Trump opposer will trust that our election was not meddled with if he wins.

 

[sjmay]

No. Impeachment exists for this reason. Because it sets precedent that this is acceptable behavior. It's almost like NO Trump supporter has read any of the federalist papers or the discussions about impeachment and WHY the founders put it in the constitution. Moreover, the entirety of the 2020 election has now been poisoned by this. Trump's PACS are already running ads about Burisma, meaning the smear is already complete, bargain or not.

And that is the most damning part of this whole fiasco. Trump is a loose cannon and an impulsive president. His actions have already damned us to not trust the 2020 outcome unless it's somehow confirmed legit. The public's trust is damaged. No Trump supporter will trust a fair election ousted him if he loses; and no Trump opposer will trust that our election was not meddled with if he wins.

LMAO WTF, you have people not trusting the 2000 election or the 2016 election, you act as if it's something new.....cmon seriously?

 

[Obscurity]

Not in Washington, not in 30% of the voting population on each side.

Let's talk common sense, you have 16 witnesses, all directly asked if they had proof or knowledge, of a qpq, extortion, or bribery. ALL OF THEM SAY NO. You have the MAIN PRINCIPALS, saying, there was no such thing.

Where's the common sense when you disregard what your own witnesses testify to?

Sondland confirmed the quid pro quo. Why do you guys insist on ignoring this? Moreover, the WB report is absolutely confirmed by evidence at this stage. The testimony all points directly at donald trump. What you guys seem to want is this cartoonish video of a villain caught red handed. We all know mob bosses like Trump don't operate that way.

Anyone with any common sense knows Trump did this.

Mulveney admitted it. Sondland admitted it. Testimony confirms there was a QPQ.

This is a simple case. Some folks are just upset they lost in 2018 and don't have the power to constantly run interference for DJT any longer.

Finally - why was the ask only for the announcement of investigations, and not that they actually be opened, and why on CNN?

Hmmmm.

 

[Obscurity]

LMAO WTF, you have people not trusting the 2000 election or the 2016 election, you act as if it's something new.....cmon seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Trump's actions have called into question the validity of the 2020 election on face value. He invited foreign powers to intervene. He asked one to investigate a political rival. Even though the china statement was probably a joke, the leader of the nation needs to understand how his actions and words will impact those who don't support him or may not support him. He is the president of the united states, not the president of the trump voter constituency only.

 

[Nalu]

Yep. Though I'm sure Trump learned his lesson last time from the spanking Pelosi gave him.

Can you imagine what the public would do to Trump if he shut down the government again, during his impeachment, days before Christmas? It better not to come to that, but he would drown in a puddle of his own blood.

 

[Nalu]

Going on the OP's avatar, why would it be about anything other than politics?

Charming, isn't it?

 

[sjmay]

Sondland confirmed the quid pro quo. Why do you guys insist on ignoring this? Moreover, the WB report is absolutely confirmed by evidence at this stage. The testimony all points directly at donald trump. What you guys seem to want is this cartoonish video of a villain caught red handed. We all know mob bosses like Trump don't operate that way.

Anyone with any common sense knows Trump did this.

Mulveney admitted it. Sondland admitted it. Testimony confirms there was a QPQ.

This is a simple case. Some folks are just upset they lost in 2018 and don't have the power to constantly run interference for DJT any longer.

Finally - why was the ask only for the announcement of investigations, and not that they actually be opened, and why on CNN?

Hmmmm.

Show me the goddamn testimony that CONFIRMS there was a QPQ, show me one ****ing person who said, yes, there was a QPQ, not, I think there was, not, I believe it was NOW....not Sondland who ****ing walked back that there was a QPQ.

The problem is...you can't, show that....can you?

 

[sjmay]

Yes, seriously.

Trump's actions have called into question the validity of the 2020 election on face value. He invited foreign powers to intervene. He asked one to investigate a political rival. Even though the china statement was probably a joke, the leader of the nation needs to understand how his actions and words will impact those who don't support him or may not support him. He is the president of the united states, not the president of the trump voter constituency only.

LMAO sorry, had to laugh at the bold, because ****, that's exactly how the left has treated it since he got elected, right?

 

[Conservative]

The QPQ was on the meeting and is confirmed via Sondland's Testimony, and Mulveney admitting it on television. Does that not count as evidence?

As far as Biden is concerned, you need to jump through some mental gymnastics to convince me that firing a corrupt prosecutor who was NOT actively investigating corruption, Shoken, is somehow a conflict of interest, when, the new prosecutor would far more likely investigate corruption, meaning Biden's ties to burisma, if they were illicit, would most likely come under new and enhanced scurtiny.

Moreover, you need to convince me that Shoken has no axe to grind after being ousted for his corrupt activities.

Go.

Please explain to us where Turley got it wrong and why over 50% of the country doesn't support this Democratic Effort? What makes you right, Turley and the majority in this country wrong?

YouTube

 

[mike2810]

I thought she made the case well. This should not be about politics, but Constitution & patriotism.

She did make that point. Lets see as it unfolds if what she says is true. My bet there is a bit of politics with a bit of Constitution issues that will be played out.

 

[Conservative]

Let's establish this:

Do Criminals or those abusing power admit they are comitting those illicit actions or do they generally say "I'm not murdering you" while murdering someone?

Does common sense not exist anymore?

Would this be an issue for you if it were a Democrat in the WH? You seem to have as Turley claims, "agitated passion" over this issue, why? Do you think it is acceptable behavior on the part of the Democrats without as Turley stated, "compelling evidence" to impeach a President simply because of politics and hate? Are you capable of thinking of the consequences of the Democratic actions and the precedence being set?

 

[Nalu]

You ever have a child with a drug addiction?

I twitched when I read his post too. Nothing better to bring out the worst in people than the internet.

 

[Obscurity]

Show me the goddamn testimony that CONFIRMS there was a QPQ, show me one ****ing person who said, yes, there was a QPQ, not, I think there was, not, I believe it was NOW....not Sondland who ****ing walked back that there was a QPQ.

The problem is...you can't, show that....can you?

Sondland NEVER walked back the QPQ - Only his estimation that the aid was tied to it.

You're willingly misrepresenting facts.

I have nothing further to add with you.

 

[Obscurity]

LMAO sorry, had to laugh at the bold, because ****, that's exactly how the left has treated it since he got elected, right?

You can laugh all you like. You're not getting anything else from me. Good day, sir.

 

[Nalu]

They don't need proof. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial. If they wanted to impeach the President because he looks so ugly it should be a "high crime and misdemeanor," they can. All it requires is a simple majority vote in the House and the President is impeached. The Senate, of course, will not convict. However, if the Democrats think that will be the end of it they are very much mistaken. The American people will retaliate against the Democrat coup attempts, far more than just reelecting Trump in 2020. This will severely impact the congressional Democrats as well. I would not be surprised to see the Democrats lose the House and additional seats in the Senate in 2020.

Is that because you believe the public is that much opposed to impeachment and the Democrats' actions?