Pelosi lodging threats?

I certainly hope so. The Speaker of the House is a duly elected U.S. citizen. Zelenskiy is not.

 

Cite the evidence that proves Trump was "soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection," because all I have has been nothing but biased speculation about what people assume Trump may have wanted to do.

 

I think maybe a bit more than you think. He has been hammered by a barrage of media headlines and the most obstructive campaign by the left that I have ever seen but he's still standing. He has been very good for this country and will continue to be through his next term as well and I'm quite sure the attacks will even intensify unless the people vote Dems out of the House.

 

Why shouldn’t she? She, probably more than anyone knows that Trump is incapable of governing.

 

I was just trying to put more nuance in the conversation and you did just that. That's good information

 

It is not my fault that you don’t want to open your eyes wide enough to see.

 

Wait for the testimony of the trial witnesses, plus the additional documentation now being released by Lev Parnas.

 

It is, however, the fault of yourself if the evidence does not actually match the presented narrative.

 

OK...point being I suppose that one's view of Presidential powers may depend upon whose Party holds the Presidency. The current policy up held by the Republican DoJ, in regard to Trump, is the same policy written by a Democratic DoJ, during the Clinton administration.
I'd add a P.S. - Generally, I favored a strong Presidency during the Cold War. We opposed communism via a "collective security" we dominated. Didn't always make the right decisions (e.g. Vietnam), but succeeded with the bi-partisan policy of "containment." Then, most of the global powers recovered from the war and began demanding a larger slice of the pie to feed their own economies (to mix metaphors). In the seventies and eighties, with Nixon and Reagan, we countered these demands by splitting the Sino-Soviet Bloc, winning the Cold War and laying the foundations of globalism (still dominated by the U.S.) with free trade and low tax Republican policies. But, IMO, it didn't work. "Trickle down" became effectively "trickle out." The spread between Wall Street and Main Street grew and eventually led to the Great Recession. Now, we're taking our ball and going home. If we do return to "cultural nationalism," I see no reason to continue to support a "unitary presidency" and more than enough reason to return to a better balance between the Executive and Legislative branches.

 

I'd agree and I appreciate the adding context for those unaware

 

What has Zelensky got to do with anything?

 

We already went thru the impeachment inquiry, they did not provide any evidence to support their speculative assumptions. It's not the Senate's job to perform another inquiry for the inept House.

Edit:
They are impeaching Trump for what they think Trump's motivations were, when he asked Zenelsky if he could "look into" the circumstances surrounding Biden's braggadocios public comments where he essentially blackmailed Ukraine into firing Shokin.

The House Democrats have never proven what Trump's inner thoughts and motivations were. They have only speculated on what they think , and they think Trump was motivated to look into the matter, simply because he thought it might dig up dirt to tarnish Biden's presidential primary campaign with.

A person is not guilty simply because his accusers think they know the inner thoughts and intentions of that person. In reality, there is no way Trump will ever be able to convince his accusers that he is innocent of their presumptions of his guilt.

 

All you have to do is cite the evidence, but you cannot do that, since it does not exist, you resort to snark.

 

He's done just fine for the past three years, even with bogus and never ending 24/7/365 investigations into his presidency, by his political opponents. Obama got all prickly when the news media commented on the size of his ears.

 

If Trump said something like this, the Democrats and their lackeys in the MSM would fall over themselves accusing Trump of threatening violence.

Oh wait.... he did.
And they did.

 

Pelosi was speaking the other day about how Iran would seemingly be justified in assassinating the number two guy in the US, which would obviously be our US Vice President. Did she recently expand her remarks to include our President? That would certainly fill in the blanks for her "one way or another" comments.

 

He's the President of the Ukraine and the foreign leader to whom Trump was insisting announce investigations into the Bidens and the Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory in return for the release of appropriated foreign aid, thus influencing the 2020 election in his favor. You were implying that Pelosi was doing something similar...trying to influence the 2020 election. Pelosi is a U.S. citizen and certainly entitled to try and influence the election away from a person she doesn't believe belongs in the office, because he's committed impeachable offenses. Zelenskiy is not a U.S. citizen and would thus be illegally interfering in our election had he accepted the quid pro quo of a release of foreign aid in return for the investigation announcement.

 

And evidently, the left is fine with it.

 

I have to stop you there, and ask where your proof is to back that up that assertion. and please, conjecture, second hand hearsay and rumors do not count.

 

If only Soleimani had been the #3 guy, eh?

 

The bogus Russian collusion investigation was an attempt to affect the election. The hearsay whistleblower report in collusion with this bogus impeachment sham are also an attempt to affect the election.

 

Impeachment and removal from office is not a criminal process, so "intent" isn't necessary...just the right number of votes to remove him from office and possibly declare him ineligible from ever holding a public office again...if the Senate so votes. Intent is an important element of criminal prosecutions. However, it is not necessary to have a personal confession (or a witness to such a confession) to "prove intent" in a court of law. Juries are instructed that under certain conditions they may "infer" intent, without a direct confession or witnesses to same. As Rudy pointed out this would be under the RICO statutes and he practically wrote the statutes as the Federal Prosecutor of the Southern District of NY, when he went after the Mafia. Now, it appears, Rudy has gone over to the Dark Side and joined a different crime family. Sad.

 

​

Are you saying psychologists have a term for what we are saying about the Leftist?

Indeed! Could you please ask around and find the term for this phenom the left all share, I haven't many leftist friends I feel comfortable enough to ask that sort of personal question, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind telling you what their therapist have told them.. Oh and see what sort of medication they have been prescribed, IF, it's not to much to ask..

Thank you for your honesty, really! ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

I would certainly hope that our nation does not start impeaching presidents and removing them from office, without even bothering to show that the president committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, simply because the opposition party to the president, was in control of the House and Senate.

 

I suppose in the leftist rule book that means "Why Shouldn't she" lie.. Ya we got that!