Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

Actually it doesn't matter what the reason is. The President can fire for any reason, or no reason. However they have stated a reason. Zelensky did not trust her because she was a supporter of the previous President of Ukraine.

 

Exactly.
Trump is a small ignorant man who does things with the mind of the criminal he is. Instead firing someone and giving them a going away, “ thank you for your efforts “ retirement party, he has to
“ take her out.”

 

What evidence exactly? That Trump held up aid to Ukraine? That is true, he did. Something that every single President has done at least ONCE in their Presidency. Often multiple times. Funny how it becomes a problem under Trump? Oh wait, the claim is that he used it to pressure "bribe/blackmail" (you all can't ever make up your minds which one) Ukraine into doing an investigation. Problem with that is that Zelensky has stated several times that there was no pressure. Along with several people in Ukraines government. Add to the fact that they didn't even know it was being with held makes it really hard to pressure don't you think?

Other charge is that Trump did this just to dig up dirt on Biden in order to influence the election. Which completely ignores the fact that several news outlets, like the New York Times reported on what happened between Biden, Burisma, and that investigator LONG before Trump brought it up to Zelensky. And it also turns out that even the Obama administration was concerned about it. Anyways, not one single witness that the Dems actually called could state with ANY certainty that is what Trump wanted. In fact Sondland even stated that Trump said he didn't want anything, just that Zelensky does the right thing. And that his belief that Trump did this for personal gain in the election was just his presumption that was not based on anything that Trump said. But it was based on other things like news media articles that came out after Trumps call came to light.

So...what evidence exactly?

 

Are you implying that when Trump said "take her out" he meant something nefarious? Like maybe "kill her"? Perhaps you could expand on what you think he meant so that we don't cross wires here please?

 

And he did so in SPITE of the fact that the Department of Defense had already certified that corruption was not an issue regarding this aid.

Tapes show that he knew that Ukraine would be rolled over by Russia if we stopped aid.

 

So? Is the President beholden to the DoD or is the DoD beholden to the President? A President doesn't have to listen to his underlings ya know.

And yet...Ukraine was not rolled over any worse than they had been even before Trump took office...and still are being rolled over. The addition of those Javelins has not stopped Russia's encroachment.

 

No. He doesn't. But WHY would he disregard them? Does he have knowledge that they don't have? Where did this knowledge come from? Rudy the Ghoul?

Given that an agency had used it's rather large resources to certify that corruption wasn't an issue, one can only think that Trump withheld that aid for personal reasons...and there's plenty of evidence to support that

 

Very likely. This occurred a year before she was removed and at a dinner of Trump cronies.

He could have simply told his Secretary of State to fire her and it would be done.

Was the SoS even AT that dinner?

He was telling these criminals to do whatever it took to get her out. Engage in a campaign to make her look bad...or worse.

 

A reasonable position. But, as it turned out, neither the investigation nor the announcement of if actually happened. Also I think dealing with businesses is easier than dealing with governments. A promise to pay a past due invoice isn't burdened with politics.

 

You could ask those same questions of any other President that ignored their advisors. In the end it doesn't really matter because they are the President and not beholden to the DoD or any other of their advisors.

As for "Rudy the Ghoul"? Really? The guy was Mayor of New York City, Times Person of the Year, and has been awarded more honors and awards than you can shake a stick at. But because he supports Trump all of that is thrown away and he's considered a "ghoul" and unreliable by anyone that hates Trump and goes against the Democratic narrative. Much like anyone else. Ex: Tulsi is a "Russian asset". Its the same ole schtick. Seems like you can count on Dems slandering anyone that goes against them as much as you can count on the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

 

All of it and it's overwhelming. To say every single President has done what Trump did does not change anything even if it's true. This is about Trump, not what every single President may have done. Everything Trump does is to benefit himself personally, that's been more than obvious since day 1.

The other charge that you failed to mention is obstruction, which Trump bragged about a couple of days ago. If Trump was innocent, there would be no reason to obstruct because the evidence he withheld would include exculpatory evidence that would serve to clear him. There is only one reason to hide the evidence, it's to protect the criminal. OTOH no one has yet challenged the evidence. Saying the process is unconstitutional and/or a hoax or a coup, or "so what" does not challenge the evidence. The only thing that's a hoax and a travesty, not to mention criminal is that more than half the Senators agreed they will work with the accused to acquit, including voting to suppress additional evidence, despite their Oath declaring impartiality in the impeachment trial. Fealty to the President makes a mockery of the constitutional separation of powers doctrine, not to mention a violation of the Oath of Office. These criminals were elected to serve The People and the Constitution, not the President.

 

The criminal IMPOTUS ignores his advisers because they are NOT lickspittle yes-men whereas that is exactly the role that Giuliani is playing in this regime.

 

Why are we using implication for me who’s telling the truth, but not for Trump who lies. Double standard ?
Do you think he meant, “take her out” to an evening of dinner and dancing ? Your choice.

 

Bringing the thread back to its roots...............

"They are happy to lie about what occurred during the House inquiry, pretend "absolute immunity" is a thing, impugn the reputations of the House managers, but are not interested in disputing the facts about what happened. The testimony, timeline, and documentation included in the House manager's presentations of the admin's scheme are not being refuted. Why?"

Because if they dispute the facts they invite a rebuttal by Dems who will say, "if you think the facts aren't clear then why not clarify them by presenting the available witness testimony and documentation Trump is blocking?" Team Turd doesn't want to go there. The facts are their enemy. So too, they are the enemy of Senate Repubs who very badly want to ignore the facts in order to acquit.

 

The fact that a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation cannot be stressed enough. The left is using the allegation that it was contingent upon an announcement to claim that constitutes proof that he only wanted this for his re-election in 2020, rather than an investigation into past corruption. In a lot of ways, their entire case turns upon this interpretation, and it is with this topic that their case completely falls apart.

 

The Democrats say they have enough evidence to impeach Trump. We all heard the evidence and so far it hasn't convinced any Republicans. Yes, Trump might have gone after Biden to get an advantage over him in the election. But it's just as likely he did it as he saw illegal conduct being done by American citizens in Ukraine and asked the Ukraine President to investigate it as he promised to do. Because it can be looked at either way, there isn't enough evidence to convince enough Senators to impeach. You have to be crazy to think the Republicans are going to do anything to help the Democrats impeach him.

 

As we know, Repub Senators..........much like Trumpette's............are not persuaded by facts.

 

Until the orange lead munchkin speaks, the looliepop kids remain unconvinced of anything.

 

What were the facts to convince the Senate not to convict Bill Clinton? They had his testamentary he never had sex with that woman and the semen on her dress.

 

I'm not interested in going down the road of diversions chasing your whataboutisms. Stay on topic.

 

I just find it odd, that you guys always look over the crimes and screw ups on your side but want to hold the Right accountable for everything. Why is that?

 

Start your own thread on that topic. I'm not interested in going down the road of diversions chasing your whataboutisms. Stay on topic.

 

Probably because Bill’s is the only conviction in modern times and Republican administrations are now over 100. Criminality seems to be in the gop DNA.

 

Trump's withholding of Congress-appropriated funds is the shady act here. I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the POTUS being able to usurp Congress.

 

The circular logic of Trump's defense comes down to, "you haven't proved your case.............we will not allow you to have the evidence to prove your case."