Impeachment

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by NickDNHR, Sep 25, 2019.

  1. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I very much like your post, & agree completely. :)
     
    MiaBleu likes this.
  2. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. All true.
     
    MiaBleu likes this.
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, but do you think that it was minor details that he forgot?
     
  4. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well you feel that Mueller would have indicted Trump if he wasn't constrained by the OLC opinion, right?

    As defined by what exactly?

    By doing what, looking into the origins of the Russia investigation? IF the investigation was wrongly started, and I admit that it's a BIG IF, wouldn't it be in the country's interest in having that investigated? Would it REALLY only be serving Trump's interest?

    "Formed a shadow dept." :roflol: Are you promoting a conspiracy theory?
     
  5. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I try not to demand of others what I can't guarantee to provide myself. My memory is imperfect, & I don't expect anyone else to be perfect either. Mueller didn't remember every sentence or every point in his report. I see nothing unusual, disturbing or suspicious about that. Furthermore, since the Ukraine issue opened up & is now becoming public, the Mueller Report is almost a moot point anyway, so why care?
     
  6. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Mueller never said that, but I personally feel he would have seriously considered it.
    2. All the Democratic campaign polls then & since then.
    3. If there's evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, then I agree an investigation would be beneficial. As I've said many times on this forum, I care about the Constitution, not the party. There was sufficient evidence of Trump's wrongdoing to warrant several investigations. I support them. The latest results from the Intelligence Committee investigation support criminal wrongdoing by Trump, Sandland, Guiliani & Pompeo, so I think the investigations were a good thing. I think they warrant impeaching & removing Trump from office. The Republican Senate probably won't do that, but history will record that failure as a travesty. History is on my side.
    4. No. I'm not into conspiracy theories. But professional government workers testimonies are conclusive in the fact that Trump used Guiliani--a personal attorney--as a liaison & personal representative in his foreign policy endeavors because he distrusted the professionals who dedicated their very lives to service of country. Trump disengaged from working with the established State Dept, & circumvented it & its expert professionals with Guiliani, Sondland & Pompeo. Doing this endangered the U.S. in many ways not redily apparent to those not steeped in foreign affairs, like Sondland, Giuliani, Pompeo & Trump himself. Thru them, foreign policy was based on personal emotional responses to immediate situations, or the personal political goals of Trump himself, but NOT on established knowledge & understanding of that country or our past relationships with it, or an overall understanding of regional differences, situations or possibilities. Trump was both criminally wrong & completely inept regarding all this, & endangered & continues to endanger this country as a result.
     
    MiaBleu likes this.
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He didn't know about Fusion GPS or Christopher Steele! They were at the CENTRE of the allegations of Russian collusion against Trump!
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you feel that, considering that Mueller told Barr that he was "NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction?"

    Polls officially make someone a "front runner?" Also, would it have been any different if Biden wasn't considered the front runner?

    By doing what exactly?

    Does Trump not have any reason to distrust government officials?

    You mean just specific to Ukraine?

    How do you know that foreign policy was based on "personal emotional responses?" And do you mean just Ukrainian foreign policy?
     
  9. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Barr lied about the conclusions of the Mueller Report BEFORE it was released, & did so to help Trump. Barr is loyal to Trump more than he is to the U.S. government. I don't trust him.
    2. Polls do name front runners, & polls change all the time. Trump saw the polls naming Biden & accepted that as his most likely 2020 opponent, & began using the powers of his office to force Ukraine to help him find dirt on Biden.
    3. I've answered the question of what Trump did against the Dept of Justice & the State Dept in other posts. No need to do it all again.
    4. Not ALL of them.
    5. No. Trump circumvented the State Dept in his Syrian abdication also. Trump does not work well with others. He's a one man show, & in a democracy, that's very dangerous.
     
    chris155au and MiaBleu like this.
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A one man show? I thought that you said he worked with Gulliani, Pompeo and Sondland.
     
  11. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, they worked for him. Trump likes to be in control, & with these three, he always was.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What in the hell did Barr lie about? He released the report! :roflol:

    So would it have been perfectly okay if Biden wasn't considered the front runner? And how did Trump "FORCE" Ukraine to find dirt on Biden?

    No. You said, "Trump & Barr have shifted the working focus of the Dept of Justice from service to the Constitution, to service to Trump personally." I asked, "by doing what, looking into the origins of the Russia investigation?" Then you replied with, "if there's evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, then I agree an investigation would be beneficial." This would appear to be in response to the second question which followed my question quoted in this paragraph, however, you did NOT say how "Trump & Barr have shifted the working focus of the Dept of Justice from service to the Constitution, to service to Trump personally." I have a feeling that you mean something in regards to investigating Biden, but there is no evidence that Trump's and Gulliani's efforts to look into Biden has "shifted the working focus of the Dept of Justice" and there is no evidence that the department is actively involved in investigating Biden. You would've made slightly more sense if you were referring to the department's active investigation of the origins of the Mueller investigation, but even then, that wouldn't have shifted their working focus. You seem to be under the impression that the Dept of Justice only ever has one single working focus.

    But you agree SOME.

    How so? In case you hadn't realised, Trump is the Commander in Chief of the military and as such can direct them to leave an area without consulting any department of any person.
     
  13. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I don't recall the exact words Barr used, but he made a public announcement prior to releasing the Mueller Report, that it found Trump did nothing wrong. That was a very biased & inaccurate summation on Barr's part. Mueller found much that was wrong or done wrong in his investigation. He sent a lot of Trump's closest advisers & friends to jail or prison. Just because he didn't drag Trump off to jail, doesn't imply Trump was innocent. Other factors interceded.
    2. Trump's bribery of the Ukraine President wasn't OK, period--regardless of whether Biden was the front runner or not. Trump was using the military aid funded by Congress as a lever to force Zelinsky to find dirt on Biden. That act was a betrayal of Ukraine as a friend & ally--not unlike Trump's later betrayal of Syrian Kurds. But it also placed the U.S. into a more dangerous position, by helping Putin & the Russians gain a more firm hand in the region, along with more say over its unwilling residents. But the ultimate wrong doing was that Trump used the power of his office to committed bribery against a foreign friend, & forced them to become involved in our domestic elections against their will. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution forbids such actions, making Trump clearly guilty of making unconstitutional actions from the Oval Office, which is an impeachable offense.
    3. Historically speaking, it is the job of the Dept of Justice to investigate possible wrong doing, & keep our system of justice both fair & in agreement with the legal system. It has always regarded the President as just another American, subject to the same laws & regulations other Americans must comply with. Those who lead the Dept of Justice take the same oath as any other federal government worker, to uphold, preserve & follow the Constitution of the U.S. Trump has a strong uni-directional sense of loyalty that he enforces onto everyone around him, that insists on loyalty from them toward him personally, but not in reverse. He fails to recognize or honor anyone's commitment to anyone or anything else--including the U.S. Constitution. The way he treated AG Sessions after Session's reclusel is a good example. There are several others.
    4. I agree that it is natural in any environment or any situation to have SOME people around you that can't be trusted. That's perfectly normal. But it is highly unusual to have anyone, & especially a President, question the honesty, integrity or capabilities of the most knowledgeable people available anywhere, as dedicated advisers & co-workers--or claim superiority over their knowledge base, or decide to trust the word of our long-term enemies over the word of professional American intelligence officers. That's not only weird--it's dangerous to the security of the U.S.
    5. Yes he can. But I can question his reasons & intelligence in so doing. And I do.
     
    chris155au and MiaBleu like this.
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What, a verbal announcement? Whatever you're talking about, please supply a source to back up your assertion, if you are able. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

    Barr didn't say that Trump was innocent in general, just that he was innocent of conspiring with Russia.

    Well the Obama administration was using military aid as a lever to force Ukraine to fight corruption and fire a prosecutor. Was this also bribery?

    Even if Trump was asking for them to become involved in the election, it was ASKING not FORCING them against their will! Are you saying that Ukraine didn't have a choice?

    Did the Obama administration also violate Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution?

    And are you under the impression that the department is currently investigating Biden at Trump's request?
     
  15. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Barr gave a pre-release summary statement alleging that Mueller had found no evidence of wrong doing. Trump seized on that & claimed over & over again, "no collusion; no obstruction," which was an obvious lie to anyone willing to see the obvious. Barr's early summary had an affect on most Americans, who never took the time or made the effort to read the report itself. So Barr's summary became the final opinion on the report, in spite of its inaccuracy.
    2. It would not have been OK regardless of which potential opponent Trump sought dirt on. The act of soliciting dirt from a foreign source is itself illegal. Using the powers of the Presidency to force a foreign leader to gather dirt on a political opponent, & using military aid approved by Congress, as a lever against that foreign leader, is a crime called bribery. Bribery is regarded as an impeachable offense.
    3. No. Trump & Barr have imposed Trump's personal views of loyalty over & onto the Dept of Justice, making it far more responsive to the whims of the President than it's ever been before. The Dept of Justice, while under the administrative control of the President as part of the Executive branch, has always been given more autonomy from the President. Trump is the first President so sensitive about personal loyalties, he demands the DOJ be loyal to him personally rather than understanding that their oath is to the Constitution itself, not to the President. Barr has helped him to force this conversion. That change is bad for you & me, in that the DOJ will be answering to Presidential whims rather than the rule of law under the Constitution.
    4. I agree that every environment I've ever encountered anywhere always has a few individuals that lie &/or can't be trusted. With that a given, there would be a few professional government workers that Trump should be careful trusting. However, that group is a minority. But Trump has lumped 100% of the intelligence departments of our government, including the military ones, as not worthy of trust. He's even taken the word of demagogues like Putin over the entire U.S. intelligence community. That's really bad for America, for Putin has no inklings of good intentions toward America.
    5. Yes, Trump has that right. But Trump is good evidence for us all, that having the right is a very different thing from being right.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Extraordinary. You have replied to an earlier reply of mine which you previously replied to in post 1988! Post 1989 is my most recent reply - did you not see it?
     
  17. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Look in Youtube for Barr's pre-release statement, which was given verbally.
    2. If Trump isn't conspiring with Russia, then why did Trump publicly invite Russia to hack Hillary's computer system & find her "missing" emails? Why did Trump suddenly, & personally remove all our troops from Syria, abandon the Kurds to their fate, & publicly state he had no problem with Russian troops moving in & using our abandoned bases there? And, after several years of close friendship with Ukraine, did Trump decide it was OK to withhold military aid from them, & leave them vulnerable to Russian attacks, unless they agreed to work at finding dirt on Trump's assumed 2020 political opponent? That Ukraine policy worked to the distinct advantage of Putin & the Russians, by weakening Ukraine's main defense. Trump also insisted that Ukraine take the blame for what our own intelligence agencies concluded was definite Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump wanted to clear Russia & blame Ukraine instead. These are only a few reasons Pelosi said "all roads with Trump lead to Russia." They do. I am confused as to why Republicans are so willing to overlook Trump's strong pro-Putin/pro-Russia favoritism--so often displayed to the detriment of the U.S.
    3. Obama didn't get into bribery because his demands were for the benefit of the U.S. as a country, not himself personally. Trump's demands were for political dirt on his political foes. And, he used his powers as President to control military aid for Ukraine as a lever to get his way. And it was ALL PERSONAL--NOT FOR THE COUNTRY.
    4. Even ASKING is bribery & an impeachable crime. Ukraine needed the military aid to fight Russian troops already in their country. They needed it for their survival. With Trump withholding that aid to force them to accede to his demands, they had NO CHOICE.
    5. No--again, because he wasn't seeking anything personal in exchange. Trump was.
    6. I'm not sure, since I've not followed this issue closely & am not fully informed.
     
    chris155au and MiaBleu like this.
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please quote Barr saying that "Mueller had found no evidence of wrong doing" if you are even remotely capable of doing so. Barr simply provided the principal conclusions, which is all that concerns him in his capacity as Attorney General.

    So you're blaming Barr for Trump seizing on his words? Surely you can't be serious!

    Oh I see. So the mainstream, dominantly left wing, Trump hating media did NOT in fact make the damaging obstruction efforts PERFECTLY clear to the public? All that people had was Barr's summary? Surely you can't be serious! :roflol:

    Obama also thought that it was okay to threaten to withhold aid from Ukraine and leave them vulnerable to Russian attacks. Would withholding aid to Ukraine have made them any less vulnerable to Russian attacks just because it didn't involve asking them to find dirt on Obama's political opponent? It doesn't matter what the condition for aid was - without it, they were vulnerable to Russian attacks, were they not?

    Are you referring to the accusation that actors in Ukraine conspired with Clinton in the 2016 election?

    And he wasn't wanting anything else? Only dirt on Biden? You're forgetting about Crowdstrike,
    which has nothing to do with Biden. Also, if it turned out that Biden acted corruptly, wouldn't that be for the benefit of the country?

    Democrats haven't even BEGUN establishing that a crime took place.

    No - there's ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much it seems that there isn't one. Trump did not FORCE anyone to do anything. Simple.

    Which part of Article 1, Section 9 are you referring to?

    Well you're referring to SOMETHING that the department is doing! You said, "Trump & Barr have shifted the working focus of the Dept of Justice from service to the Constitution, to service to Trump personally." I ask again, what exactly is the department doing that is "service to Trump personally?"
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  19. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. The Mueller Report's time has come & gone. It's history--useless history. If you want to spend more time dwelling on it, fine. That's your right. I don't.
    2. No, I'm not blaming Barr for anything Trump does. Trump is responsible for himself & his own actions.
    3. Again. . .redundantly, the Mueller Report is dead history. In the words of one of your Trumpster heros, "Get over it."
    4. It's my understanding that Obama threatened withholding military aid due to the intense level of corruption found in the Ukraine government at that time. President Zelensky, who took office in May 2019, ran on an anti-corruption theme, & was a better ally to work with than his corrupt predecessor. Obama had a corrupt President in Ukraine to work with, & had to be careful. Trump had a new, anti-corruption President to work with, but instead, used the powers of his office to bribe Zelensky for personal gain. From my perspective, Zelensky was trying to clean out the curruption, while Trump was trying to utilize it for himself.
    5. No. In Feb 2017, while feeling the pressure from U.S. intelligence agencies accusing him & Russia of interference in our 2016 election, Putin, like any good dictator, made a public statement trying to shift blame from Russia, onto the Ukrainians. Trump listens intently to everything Putin utters, & took the idea seriously. Since then, Trump has often submitted the idea that it was Ukraine, & not Russia, that did the 2016 computer hacking. His demands from Zelensky included a public statement from Zelensky that he was investigating possible Ukraine interference in the American 2016 election. Trump is desperate to clear Putin's & Russia's good name--regardless of the truth or the repercussions.
    6. Crowdstrike, as with the American intelligence agencies, concluded that Russia had hacked into the DNC computers during the 2016 election. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate, & show evidence that Cloudstrike was wrong, & it was actually Ukraine that did the 2016 election interference.
    7. You're not listening or watching. No one can force open a closed, already made up, mind.
    8. Wrong. Ukraine had already agreed to comply with Trump's demands, when the story broke open & Trump had to cancel it all in an attempt to keep it hidden.
    9. It's all there, & it's a short read.
    10. This will take more time than I have available to me now.
     
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm just giving you the opportunity to defend your position on it. You haven't been able to. You weren't able to quote Barr saying that "Mueller had found no evidence of wrong doing" or words to the effect of. What you are incapable of understanding is that Barr simply provided the principal conclusions in his summary statement and summary letter, which is all that concerned him in his capacity as Attorney General. You just don't like how he didn't mention all of the things in the report that make Trump look bad! Well that wasn't his job! Sorry! It WAS however, the media's job, and they did a pretty good job in making sure that the public knew about all of the juicy detail. Don't you agree? Or do you actually think that the public are in the dark because of Barr?

    Then why is Trump 'seizing' on what Barr said relevant to what you see as Barr lying in his summary statement? Why did you bring it up?

    What "Trumpster hero" are you referring to?

    Okay, but it left Ukraine vulnerable to Russian attacks did it not? I know a double standard when I see one, and you've made it quite clear that you have one!

    Are you getting that from the call transcript or from somewhere else?

    If Trump cared so much about Russia, then why was he the first President to arm the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry?

    I'm listening and watching and all that I'm hearing and seeing is an effort to establish that an impeachable offense took place, NOT that a CRIME took place. However, why the need to establish a crime anyway? That's not necessary for impeachment, is it?

    Are you getting that from the call transcript? Anyway, even if this is true, how does it mean that Trump "FORCED" them?

    I didn't know that you meant that the entire article applies. Anyway, Article 1, Section 9 doesn't say anything about anything being "personal in exchange." And why is no media outlet talking about the relevance of Article 1, Section 9 in relation to the Trump/Ukraine story? Is this just something that you made up?

    Oh how very convenient! I'm pretty certain that even if you had all the time in the world, you wouldn't be capable of saying what the department of justice is doing that is "service to Trump personally!" :roflol:
     
  21. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    3. Mulvaney
    4. When Obama was President, the Ukraine government was under the leadership of a strongly pro-Russian President, who eventually left Ukraine for Russia, taking $millions of Ukraine money with him. Obama couldn't depend on Ukraine actually using any money or aid we offered them being used by that corrupt leader, to defend Ukraine against Russia. In May 2019, President Zelensky took power in Ukraine. Zelensky ran on a strong anti-corruption platform & won. Trump was dealing with Zelensky, who is strongly anti-Russian, as opposed to Obama, who dealt with the pro-Russian President. The situation was vastly different. But Trump inserted corruption into the dialogue himself, but placing demands onto Zelensky as conditions for receiving military aid already approved by Congress. But the conditions Trump insisted on, weren't anything to benefit the U.S., or to guarantee the proper use of the aid. It was solely for the purpose of helping find dirt on Trump's domestic political foe, Joe Biden. In addition, Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly commit to opening a new investigation into UKRAINIAN interference into the American 2016 election. Three American investigations had already done that & concluded it was the Russians who interfered, NOT UKRAINIANS. But Trump, the Putin lackey, wanted to clear Putin & the Russians, & transfer the blame for election interference over to Ukraine instead.
    5. The call transcript is only the beginning. Much more evidence has come to light from the Congressional hearings--now being pursued publicly for all to see. Those hearings make it pretty near impossible to claim innocence on the part of Trump, Guiliani, Sandland or Pompeo.
    6. I suspect Trump's hand was forced when the call transcript opened the investigation that would reveal his ongoing extortion of Zelensky. Trump released the Congressional aid, hoping the investigation wouldn't discover his wrongdoing.
    7. It is not necessary to establish criminal behavior in an impeachment process, but it makes a stronger case if they can.
    8. No, I'm getting this from the continuing testimonies from professional foreign service persons testifying in the Congressional hearings. Trump controls the disbursement of military aid approved by Congress for Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting a Russian military invasion of their country. Trump knew Ukraine needed that aid in order to be successful resisting the Russian invasion, so he used its release as a lever to FORCE Ukrainian President Zelensky to comply with his (Trump's) demands for dirt on Biden & for a public statement by Zelensky, that Ukraine was opening a new investigation into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 American election. Everyone except Trump knows & accepts the fact that it was the Russians working inside Ukraine, who interfered in the 2016 elections, but Trump wants the blame transferred from Putin & Russia over & onto Ukraine. That's another big Pro-Putin activity by Trump for Putin & the Russians.
    9. I explained the legal relevance of Article 9, Section 9 to Trump's actions in another post earlier. I don't know what media you watch for your news, though I suspect it might be Fox News Propaganda Station. They don't cover the Constitutional connections because they don't want you to know about it. I watch MSNBC mostly, with CNN as a secondary source, & I've seen the Constitutional connections discussed at length, quite often. So, no, I didn't just make it up.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, but again, it STILL left Ukraine vulnerable to Russian attacks, regardless of who the President of Ukraine was. Are you saying that they were NOT vulnerable to Russian attacks?

    Are you treating the perception of the witnesses as FACT? It sure seems like it to me.

    You have NO IDEA what you're talking about! Trump first armed the Ukrainians over a year ago! Why would he do that if he cared so much about Russia?

    And does it look like Democrats are even CLOSE to getting what they need to prove that a crime took place?

    How did Trump FORCE Zelensky to do it?

    There's ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much it seems that there isn't one. Trump did not FORCE anyone to do anything. Simple. You may need to look up the definition of "force."

    You're confused. Trump doesn't want to accept that ANYONE interfered with the election, because he believes that it takes away from the idea that he won it without any help! He doesn't want to accept that Ukraine interfered with the election any more than he does Russia!

    Do they discuss Article 1, Section 9 specifically?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess you can no longer defend your position.
     

Share This Page