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

Agree.
Looking “by the trial” and at the electorate is the most worthy audience as the senate majority only has an interest in the facts if their Constituents insist upon it. Hence, the rush job. Senators like Collins can hide for a couple of weeks......not so easy if the trial drags on.

 

Not true.

A temporary hold on aid funds could just as easily be predicated upon encouraging an investigation into past corruption by the last administration, as it could be an investigation into the 2020 opponent. What we are discussing is whether or not an alleged requirement for a public announcement differentiates between those two possible motives. It does not.

 

The Democrats don't really want witnesses, as they will stick with their original plan to cry cover-up while they try to project to the media mutt patrol that they are devastated.

I doubt that we will hear from further witnesses. Plenty of RINO influence to not let that take place.

The Dems never expected to see Trump release the transcript and were caught flat footed.

In reality, the Dems will be happy and elated if the Senate votes down witnesses.


The Democrats' lament, "Here I sit broken hearted, came to Schiff but only farted."

 

I'm flattered. But I can't take credit. Most people know them as "logic". And I know there are people to whom logic doesn't "make sense".

However, since you have now abandoned the debate of arguments.... good luck with... whatever you use to replace logic. Strawman arguments and ad-hominems, I see from your response....

 

Yes, very good.

 

But it wasn't, because there was no corruption with regard to Shokin's removal. BTW, the temporary hold was illegal.

 

You have no factual basis for saying that it wasnt. All that you have is your suspicion. You and I have discussed this exact topic at length, and you have failed to back up your claims of KNOWING his motive. Unless you have something new to add, I see no reason to discuss the same thing again and again and again.

 

You don't have to mention the word directly. You strip a person of their Rights then you treat them like slaves.

A government is an institution. Not people. People run the government, they are not THE government. I'm sorry but I can't continue to debate someone that can't understand the difference between an institution and human beings.

 

They don't need to since Democrats offered few if any facts. They offered conjecture. Trump admitted he wanted an investigation into corruption and not simply Zelensky to tell him he would. He wanted Zelensky to announce it to make sure it was done.

The only question left is whether Trump had corrupt intent, as in the tale that Democrats told. Biden has already answered that and will hopefully answer it tomorrow in prime time:



The only way Trump could possibly be guilty is if Burisma was clean as a whistle and if the only possible explanation for Trump doing his job in fighting corruption was to beat a candidate for the Democrat nomination. Want to argue that? Good luck.

 

As I've said before, Trumpette's won't be satisfied unless he goes on national TV and confesses. Rational people look at the overwhelming, irrefutable fact pattern with every piece of the puzzle fitting together seamlessly to show his guilt.

However, if you remain unconvinced by the facts in evidence, have you called your Repub congressperson to demand that every available piece of evidence be entered in to the record? Or, like Senate Repubs, are you happy to hide from more corroborating evidence?

 

No one is stripping anyone of their rights. You just don't get it. I keep repeating the point but you have some kind of mental block. Donald Trump has the same rights as any other individual as a human being. However in his role as a state actor, there are no rights, just powers and privileges. He has the sworn duty to do his job in his role as a public servant. That means he has no right (because he is not acting as a private individual) to block the House from exercising their constitutionally granted power to IMPEACH the President. He also has no constitutionally granted power to block the House to IMPEACH the President. By refusing to submit documents that the House subpoena'd and ordering those the House subpoena'd to testify in their impeachment investigation not to testify, he is exercising powers he doesn't have. These are NOT rights. I doubt you'll ever understand the point no matter how many times and ways I explain it to you, but it doesn't matter, I will try to clarify your misconceptions whenever you state them. You don't know what you're talking about. Take a course on the basics of rights, powers and privileges like I did a couple of decades ago. You'll never learn these basic concepts in grade school. If you don't understand that much, you'll never understand the Constitution or its true purpose.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson (allegedly)

You can call it what you want but you're contradicting yourself. A government consists of people (as YOU noted) and people in government tend to corrupt because those in government are granted POWERS and power corrupts. Anyone with any reasonable intelligence knows that. That has been the history of man and will always be the history of man. If you read and understood our founding document, you would know our founders were well aware of that history and acted as they saw fit (see my signature). In a monarchy, government consists of 1 person who is absolute (the "Divine Right of Kings" or "le Roi Soleil").

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

There is no government without people, it (the "institution" as you call it) doesn't run itself.

And your hero Donald Trump, the guy you believe can do as he pleases simply by doing it, is as corrupt as they come. And BTW, so is just about everyone in Washington. Nearly everyone in government leaves their job much wealthier than when they first started their job. That's not a coincidence and it isn't because of their paychecks.

You are barking up the wrong tree. It's YOU who believes in false concepts. I don't debate. A debate is a game of sorts with a winner and a loser. I'm not here to play games, I'm here to engage in discussion and in the process hopefully learn something I don't already know. If you wish to terminate this DISCUSSION, that's your prerogative but I will correct your misconceptions as I see fit regardless. That's my prerogative.

 

I wanted to say I have a lot of respect for how you methodically dismantle the arguments of Trumpette's. But I think you've already figured out they are as amenable to logical thought processes, fact, empirical data, or appeals for reason as.............well..............I better not say or be banned.

 

Cool slight of hand. No defense witnesses were allowed in the unprecedented interrogations in the SCIF. No Republican interviews outside of the SCIF, only Schiff. No vote of the full house to subpoena witnesses in the SCIF. Bolton was subpoenaed, and he went to court to ask the judge what he should do in light of conflicting demands. Pelosi revoked the subpoena instead of defending her subpoena in court, the turned around and made up a crime.

Look in the mirror and you'll see why Democrats are not trusted.

 

Proven? WTF does proven have to do with it? The DEMS have spoken......"So let it be written, so let it be done."

 

This video isn't the big discovery - some sort of secret unearthed - that you seem to think it is.

It is simply Biden recounting how he gave Ukraine a final ultimatum to clean up their act, (by firing the corrupt General prosecutor) or no more aid, as per US policy and with the full support of the EU, IMF, EBRD, and the Ukrainian people themselves, ALL of whom wanted him gone.

It was well-known and publicized at the time.

Apparently, however, news to you.

 

It's been around forever, but has been stuffed by the media. I'll bet many people who don't spend their days bantering with idiots as I do have never seen it.

 

It hasn't been "stuffed by the media".

It was posted by the Council on Foreign Relations, which hosted the discussion - hardly a hot destination on youtube.

And, as I said, there's nothing even vaguely newsworthy about it. The firing was well-known and covered at the time it took place.

 

Failure to account for ALL of the RELEVANT FACTS effectively NULLIFIES your attempt to provide an "alternative" narrative.

 

I take it that your lack of response means that your do not know, or you want to avoid facing your supported parties hypocrisy. During the Obama Administration, they chose to send non-lethal military equipment to Ukraine, and to Sanction Russia. An action plan that did little to help Ukraine, or hurt Russia's actions. The stated reason for Obama's lack of real support was that they were afraid that Russia would use it as a reason to escalate things with Ukraine. President Trump pushed for authorization to send lethal military equipment to Ukraine, and for actual financial support for the Ukraine military. The situation between Ukraine and Russia has not changed one bit. As I stated before, all the military aid and equipment that the US can provide will not change that situation. The only way for the US to change the situation would be to provide advanced weaponry and put troops on the ground. That is not going to happen short of an all out assault by Russia. Even then, it is unlikely that such support would arrive in time to make a difference. So, Ukraine's existance is solely dependent on their allies keeping diplomatic pressure on Russia not to invade.

To claim that President Trump delaying the release the military aid to Ukraine left them vulnerable to being overrun by Russia is both ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

Democrats’ Risky Impeachment Strategy
US News & World Report· 3 days ago
The claims accuse Biden, who was at the time tasked with rooting out corruption in Ukraine as vice president, of recommending then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin'

Isn't that like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

 

Doesn't matter. It undermines the argument for criminal intent because, new or old, widely known or stuffed, it puts corruption on display. If that doesn't do the job, payments to Democrat lawmakers by Burisma, including those who voted to impeach, @RepVisclosky, @RepCheri, @ScottPetersCA52, @RepAnnieKuster, @USRepKeatingmaking; and those about top vote on impeachment, @SenatorShaheen, @SenBooker, @MarkWarnerVA, certainly does:




https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cf...A-04E1-41B1-A533-BF7C438C3FA7&filingTypeID=87

https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cf...B-7306-4BF2-9813-04DC312FC0AF&filingTypeID=90

 

No it doesn't.

Pressuring Ukraine to fire the corrupt General Prosecutor was not "corrupt" - it was enforcing US policy The $1 billion loan guarantee was contingent on anti-corruption measures. Retaining the corrupt General prosecutor violated this agreement. Hence, Biden gave Ukraine an ultimatum.

I have already explained this. And, the fact that it was well-known at the time - not hidden, or secret. Transparent.

There is nothing nefarious about this either. Burisma, like many companies, hired a lobbyist - back in 2014. This was part and parcel of its effort, like many Ukrainian companies at the time - hot on the heels of the 2014 Maiden Revolution - to turn away from Russia and further Western interest and investment. Hence, the lobbying activity is categorized as "Foreign Relations".

Note also that there was ZERO Burisma lobbying activity after 2014, by anyone.

It is also ludicrous to suggest that $1,000 back in 2014 would cause someone to vote for impeachment.

 

The prosecutor was only corrupt because he was going after the company that was paying Hunter $50K - $83K per month. His corruption caused an attempt on his life.

 

Bollocks!

He was corrupt because he was NOT investigating Burisma and all of the other rampant corruption in Ukraine!

 

So these corruptocrats funded their campaigns with foreign money ,,, took cash in 2013 & 2014, money that came from Ukraine, the same country involved in meddling in the 2016 election along with Russia, Hillary and Glen Simpson --- when Trump takes an interest in investigating the attempts to steal an election from him, you don't think the corruptocrats who were on the take wouldn't want him offed? Are we discussing the same corrupt POS's.

I can't wait for the Obama meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors hosted by the future whistleblower is reported widely.