To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

The charge that I'm in denial coming from someone who totally bought in (and still does!) to the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy is rich!

I'm open to facts, and I'll wait until your kangaroo impeachment court actually starts presenting them. In the meantime, you'll buy just about anything.

 

Obama withheld military aid from The Ukraine as well, and that benefited the Russians so was Obama a Russian spy?

That's why I'm not buying your argument. You seem to regard inference as evidence, and I'm not even buying your foreign policy argument that aid to Ukraine is double plus good for the US and no aid is high treason. It's not that it's simplistic ( although it is) but the real purpose of US foreign aid is to benefit the US, not the recipient country. As I've suspected, this is a foreign policy argument that you guys on the left are trying to weirdly tack on as a criminal one. I'll wait for evidence of an actual crime.

 

Because you don't have an understanding of evidence or the crime.

 

"Fiona Hill’s testimony is riddled with speculation and guesses about any role that Mr. Mulvaney played with anything related to Ukraine. She bases much of her testimony about him on things allegedly heard from unnamed staffers, guards in the West Wing, and “many people.” The fact is that Ms. Hill has never met Mr. Mulvaney other than in passing, and has never discussed anything with him regarding Ukraine. We have no idea why Ms. Hill believes Mr. Mulvaney was so heavily involved, especially in light of Ambassador Sondland’s contrary testimony that he only spoke very infrequently to Mr. Mulvaney and had zero substantive conversations with him about Ukraine. This inquiry continues to be a sham. No court in this country would give any weight to testimony about Mr. Mulvaney as speculative as Ms. Hill’s. Neither should Congress or the public."— Mulvaney attorney Bob Driscoll

There is a simple solution to all this. Mick Mulvaney should appear before the impeachment hearings to clear his name. Will that happen? Of course not, and neither will Bolton, Pompeo, or Giuliani, or anyone close to Trump who is aware of the issues.

Theoretically, those close to Trump would b exculpatory witnesses presenting his side. But Trump won't allow that to happen. Why is that?

The answer to that question is quite simple.

 

1. Obama did withhold military aid from Ukraine because Obama didn't have Zelensky to work with there. Obama worked with Zelensky's predecessor, who was Pro-Russian, & so corrupt he eventually ended up stealing $millions from Ukraine before fleeing to Russia to live. Zelensky ran for President on a strong anti-corruption platform & won big. Trump had Zelensky to work with, & that made Ukraine much more trustworthy & capable of working with. But Trump still withheld the military aid, until Zelensky personally agreed to comply with Trump's PERSONAL demand for dirt on Biden, his presumed Democratic opponent in 2020. Obama withheld aid to protect American interests. Trump withheld aid to get help from Ukraine in finding dirt on his personal Democratic political rival in 2020. Big difference.
2. If you are as open to the evidence as you claim, prove it by describing the evidence you discover thru listening or watching it on TV or Internet.

 

Can you answer it with something based on actual evidence from an impartial and unbiased source? And not speculation and inference?

Didn't think so.

 

A) This thread is about Trump, not Obama.

B) Your statement is false. "Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Under Obama, the federal government started the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which sent other kinds of U.S. military equipment to the country. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million. In the last year of the Obama administration, Congress authorized lethal aid." https://www.politifact.com/florida/...aetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/

That Trump myth is a total lie.

 

You answer the question. In the impeachment inquiry, why doesn't Trump allow those closest to him to appear as witnesses in the hearings?

In my view, their testimony would be damning. You are the one always protecting Trump. What is your view?

 

Like so many others. Thank you for making that important point.

 

I don't know and don't care. You do know that if someone is accused of a crime (as the impeachment inquiry effective is) that they are under no moral or legal immigration to try to make the prosecutions case for them.

I've already started a thread where I pointed out that I fully believe President Trump wanted the Ukrainians to gather dirt on Joe Biden. I also posted that I didn't think it would ever be provable.

I stand by both opinions.

 

But where do you stand in regards to your personal concerns for Trump's behaviors?

 

And, of course, like all of Trump's fans, you are ignoring the evidence. You haven't questioned any of if. You just ignore it.

You may not be worried about Sondland's testimony, but he GOP certainly is, and I consider that a higher authority.

Gordon Sondland was considered a figure who could crack the impeachment inquiry wide open. Not just because he was the witness directly talking to President Trump about Ukraine but also because of who he is: a Republican and Trump donor, a high-profile ambassador unanimously confirmed by the Republican Senate.

And despite his background as a Trump ally — the president last month called him “a very good guy and a great American” — in his opening statement Wednesday, Sondland stepped on nearly all of Republicans’ primary defenses for the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...estimony-torpedoes-republican-defenses-trump/

The testimonies today from Former White House adviser Fiona Hill and David Holmes, a top staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine further dismantled the Republican defenses.

By the way, since April, a lot of people involved in this controversy have "former" in front of their title, that would include another National Security Advisor.

 

He's still my president. My personal concerns not withstanding.

 

I'm sure they'll testify during the senate trial.

Can't wait!

 

So Obama had reasons for withholding the aid? It's not an automatic charge of treason?

That confirms my post that this was a foreign policy dispute, not a criminal one. The criminalization of policy is very much a sign that democracy is on it's last legs, and since you are on the side that's doing that...

As far as describing evidence, I'll very much talk about the evidence that's presented when there are actual charges. Right now it's simply throwing stuff on the wall and hoping something sticks.

 

Interesting and of course wrong (coming from you-a given). @XploreR in post #281 just described exactly that, that Obama withheld aid. So maybe you should take it up with him, although I'm not sure why you would insist that this thread isn't about Obama, then post an argument and link about Obama! You are hilarious sometimes.

 

I am all in favor of Trump asking the new Ukrainian president to help fight corruption. In a public forum, Biden bragged about a shakedown.

Actually, I would love to see some consequences be bestowed on the pay to play club featuring Hillary Clinton and her foundation.

 

For now, he's all of our President, but are there limits to his leadership that you'd feel hesitant to follow? I have bit my tongue & held my piece with several Presidents in my life, whom I disagreed with. But Trump represents the opposite of what I regard as a true American, or even a comfortable human being to be around, & the struggle within me is more severe & challenging than with anyone in the Oval Office before. There are so many things wrong with Trump, I am overwhelmed by it all. I not only disagree with him as a leader. . .I fundamentally disagree with him as an example of a human being. I can think of NOTHING where Trump & I agree, & that's way outside of my comfort zone. I am deeply fearful of the division Trump is causing across America & the implications of that division in the near future. There's no rational reason to promote such division. It erodes the unity of the nation, & we all know what happened last time that occurred. I'm not against Trump being successful in real estate. I'm not against him returning to that life. But I AM opposed to having Trump in the Oval Office & using the powers of the Presidency to enrich himself & his family at the expense of the nation as a whole--which he is currently doing. I want him impeached & removed from office, not because I'm hostile & want him to hurt him. I want him removed from office because I'm concerned about the damage he's doing to my country & its people. Send him back to his golden tower & give America a reprieve from his negativity & extremism.

 

1. Obama's reasons involved the security of the country. Trump's reasons were purely personal, & he was endangering the independence of Ukraine by withholding military aid when Ukraine was engaged in a war with Russia, & he did that for PERSONAL reasons that had no connection to the security of the country. Using the power of his office for personal benefit, is a crime.
2. Wrong. See my #1, just above. Trump used his Presidential power to benefit himself & put both Ukraine & the U.S. at risk as a result. How can you not see this?
3. There's a lot of stuff sticking. Stay tuned.

 

I agree for the most part. But it's also irrelevant.

 

You're falling victim to Trump propaganda regarding Ukraine corruption. Trump keeps saying he wants to end Ukraine corruption, but in reality, no evidence has surfaced in all the Congressional hearings that Trump ever even mentioned Ukraine corruption in any conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky. But Trump repeatedly insisted in those conversations that Zelensky investigate & find dirt on Biden for Trump's benefit. Zelensky had been recently elected after running a strong anti-corruption campaign, & was already doing something to fix corruption in his country. Instead of helping, Trump brought his own corruption into his conversations with Zelensky, which made the U.S. a new participant in that corruption rather than an aid in eliminating it.

How & why do you support this?

 

How is it irrelevant?

 

Our personal based opinions about President Donald Trump don't matter. He can't (or shouldn't) be impeached because we (and millions) find him to be a vile, disgusting person.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-chris-cuomo-andrew-mccabe-james-baker-fbi-fisa

Lol... why was that Russia hoax starteed?

Guess who was right all along ? Yep your President, Donald J Trump... you can apologize if you want.

 

I agree with your statement, but shouldn't he be impeached for breaking the law & using the powers of his office for personal benefit?