Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[Xzi]

How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?

Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?

Are you religious???

This has nothing to do with faith or belief. These are all people who worked in or around the Trump administration and are witnesses to the same series of events. You're trying to create obscurity where there is none. At this point, you might as well be using the Chewbacca defense. Matter of fact, I think I've heard a few Republican congressmen use some variation of it during the hearings already.

 

[Hanafuda]

These are all people who worked in or around the Trump administration and are witnesses to the same series of events.

Only a couple of them so far are genuine fact witnesses. You admitted as much yourself. And they didn't prove quid pro quo wrt: the aid, they only offered their "presumption" or personal assessment (mired with political bias) that something was wrong. The rest are just offering suppositions and hearsay. And that's with some conflict between witnesses about who said what to who.

I know the Democrats will all vote for the articles if a vote is taken, regardless of the record. The repercussions of bucking the party would be too great. (Like the threats and protests against Sondland on his family's business property by leftists to coerce his testimony.) But I have paid attention, and every person who has come in to blow up Schiff's balloon for him has eventually let the air out by the time cross examination was complete. Nobody has proof of what has been claimed.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But the cumulative weight of the evidence presented by the Schiff Show ain't a hill of beans. You want to unseat a duly elected President of the United States, on inferences and presumptions? Fortunately it will never get that far.

 

[Xzi]

Only a couple of them so far are genuine fact witnesses. You admitted as much yourself.

And there's no reason to doubt those couple witnesses. Or any of the second-hand witnesses for that matter. Giuliani has not disputed their accounts, and I don't expect he will. Nor do I expect the White House will allow him to testify under oath. He'll probably be the guy to take the fall though, after which we might get more information from him.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I wonder if anyone here would argue that the article of obstruction of justice will hold ground in a trial in the senate.

This can cover anything from Mueller's findings to this Ukraine scandal.

The current information we have in front of us is the white house has refused to comply to a lawful congressional impeachment inquiry. They have not provided requested documents and barred witnesses from participating, witnesses that would have direct knowledge to whether aid was withheld.

I ponder whether or not obstruction of justice and solicitation of a foreign government to investigate a political opponent alone would be enough to hold ground in an impeachment trial.

I know President Trump met with Mitt Romney and Susan Collins today for lunch. I speculate this was to garner support to dismiss the trial and prevent it from moving forward. I feel if that was his purpose he will be sorely disappointed. If it was to try to measure whether republican senators like themselves would vote with the party or not, who knows?

Recent governor elections have shown Trump stumping to have marginal effect, which begs the question as who needs who more. For the past few years the narrative has been that republicans need to stay in line with Trump or else they will lose. I don't imagine most Trump supporters are going to hop over to the democratic party. I'm wondering how the dynamic of Trump-republican congressional officials will evolve as 2020 looms.

 

[Xzi]

I wonder if anyone here would argue that the article of obstruction of justice will hold ground in a trial in the senate.

This can cover anything from Mueller's findings to this Ukraine scandal.

Nothing would hold ground in the Senate. Trump could literally shoot and kill somebody on the Senate floor with cameras filming, and we'd still be lucky to get two votes to convict out of Republicans, and only because they represent purple states. With so much of the base latched on to him, Trump is the Republican party now, and that's why every right-winger in government is too afraid to cross him. They've voluntarily voided their oaths of office.

 

[cots]

If the democrats continue to attempt to impeach Trump after the senate clears him then it falls to the public to make a decision whether they support or not support it. If it isn't warranted and desired then the public will likely not support that decision and they will face backlash at the polls, be it 2020 or 2022.

Inquiry isn't fair because he's not letting it be fair. If he wants to defend his innocence and produce/release a host of documents showing everything was above board then he would give his republican defenders something to work with. If he allowed senior officials to testify and they dispelled this whole thing as a lack of communication among peons then the public can see that as presented evidence in his favor. His biggest mistake, presuming his innocence in this entire situation, is tying the republican's hands behind their backs and asking them to fight a one-sided fight.

Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?

I went into this thinking, "Well, it's setup, it's rigged, it won't be fair, they'll lie, they'll cheat and if they lose they'll refuse to accept the fact they lost, but maybe, just maybe Trump is actually guilty". You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit. The Liberal Democrats are so stupid they'll buy into whatever they're told to buy into. It doesn't take a genius to figure out most of their claims are complete utter fabrications. I support Trump not giving them shit. If someone had brought me to court and accused me 10 times of different crimes after spending 2 years trying to ruin my life I wouldn't cooperate with them either.

Again, I ask you. Does what I wrote in my first paragraph sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt? If you answer "yes" to either of them please do explain your position. I'm waiting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?

Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?

Are you religious???

I'll take the word over one scientist that can produce accurate results and duplicate his or her results as opposed to 1,000,000 that simply assume they are correct. I'm not bias. I base things on if they are true or false. I base things on what's real and what's not. Liberals only hear what they want to hear and what they hear is only being heard by the people who pull their strings. They cannot think for themselves. Even their $2,000 course on Critical Thinking is useless because they stopped teaching Independent Thinking in grade school. They'd read this and only see what they want to see and ignore the fact that what they're doing is wrong, but these are the same people that claim that there is no right or wrong only what feels good or feels bad. I do agree with the Liberals on one thing; that we need more care for mentally ill people. I would fully support kicking out all of illegal immigrants we have now in the detention centers by sending them back to where they came from and turning them into mental health clinics and lock the mentally ill Liberal population in the cages Obama built.

I would never want to play a competitive video game against a Liberal. They'd agree to the rules, cheat in the game and then refuse to accept the rules they agreed to when they lost. After that they would spend years obsessed with their loss and try to ruin any further game I tried to play by claiming I'm cheating based on no credible evidence. Not only are Liberals liars and cheats, but they are also pathetic sore losers. If they had a team in the NFL they would have been kicked out after their first game.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I support Trump not giving them shit. If someone had brought me to court and accused me 10 times of different crimes after spending 2 years trying to ruin my life I wouldn't cooperate with them either.

I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.

I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.

The perceived issue that the Trump administration is having is he can't, so the only thing left is to obstruct and distract.

If that's so maybe he should start with the Liberals on this board. I've already reported one mod for encouraging people to assassinate the President. Seeings as the secret service is legally required to investigate all threats and the moderator is from the USA I'm sure this site is least now on their radar.

Advocating the murder of those who disagree with you is simply childish behavior. I've ran into another on a prior thread who seemed to believe when backed into a wall in a debate that threatening violence is acceptable discourse. It simply is unproductive and unwelcome.

I was about to address your first paragraph as requested earnestly but I'm going to refrain. If you wish to recant that statement and offer an apology I'll continue.

 

[cots]

I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.

I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.

The perceived issue that the Trump administration is having is he can't, so the only thing left is to obstruct and distract.

Advocating the murder of those who disagree with you is childish and pedantic. I've ran into another on a prior thread who seemed to believe when backed into a wall in a debate that threatening violence is acceptable discourse. It simply is unproductive and unwelcome.

I was about to address your first paragraph as requested earnestly but I'm going to refrain. If you wish to recant that statement and offer an apology I'll continue.

How convenient. You reply with something that backs up your agenda and then suddenly stop replying when it comes to having to expose said agenda. After watching what you've been doing for the last few months you're not fooling me anymore. You are just as crooked as the rest of the Liberals on this board. The thing is they have enough balls to not hide behind some fake sense of being rational. I'm also not advocating murder. No one backed me into any walls. It was a joke and I'm not apologizing especially to you who has zero voice in telling me what I can or cannot do. Violence is a totally acceptable outcome to situations. However, I have not personally threatened anyone with violence nor am I advocating for it. The facts are it is a last resort to real life situations where you would need to protect yourself, your property or your family. No one should be silenced for claiming that they would defend their own life against an attacking force. Seeings as the moderators can suggest to the forum users that someone should assassinate Trump I see where your priorities lie. I also see you found a reason to dance around the subject and not answer my questions. I assume you'd be answering "yes" both of them. I assume it would be too hard to come up with any justification for taking the Liberals side. Hey, assumptions trump reality, right? Traitor.

 

[cots]

I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.

I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.

The perceived issue that the Trump administration is having is he can't, so the only thing left is to obstruct and distract.

Advocating the murder of those who disagree with you is simply childish behavior. I've ran into another on a prior thread who seemed to believe when backed into a wall in a debate that threatening violence is acceptable discourse. It simply is unproductive and unwelcome.

I was about to address your first paragraph as requested earnestly but I'm going to refrain. If you wish to recant that statement and offer an apology I'll continue.

Actually I do apologize. The joke only addressed a small group of people. I rephrased it. Sorry I wasn't more specific. It must be nice to sit on your high horse, refuse to admit your true intentions then avoid questions that would shine light on your actual motivations. You're not really that smart, but go ahead, cry about claims of violence to try to get me silenced. Liberals are great at lying and twisting facts, especially when the attention is on them. I'll take my ban or whatever, even though I'm not threatening anyone. This site is full of immature lying, thieving, immoral, sinning, miserable Liberal children that are constantly involved in a circle jerk attacking and advocating violence against the President of the USA. Most of the members on this site make me sick to my stomach. Most of you deserve each other. You're all definitely going to hell. Enjoy that eternal damnation in trade for selling your souls for a short 30-80 year miserable lifespan.

The rephrased quote is below.

Nothing would hold ground in the Senate. Trump could literally shoot and kill somebody on the Senate floor with cameras filming, and we'd still be lucky to get two votes to convict out of Republicans, and only because they represent purple states. With so much of the base latched on to him, Trump is the Republican party now, and that's why every right-winger in government is too afraid to cross him. They've voluntarily voided their oaths of office.

Be careful for what you wish for because maybe he might start with the Liberal population (insert sarcasm / joke disclaimer here). I've already reported one mod for encouraging people to assassinate the President (insert not sarcasm / not a joke disclaimer here). Seeings as the Secret Service is legally required to investigate all threats related to harming the United States President and the moderator is from the USA and over the age of 18 I'm sure this site is least now on their radar.

 

[urherenow]

I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.

Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).

Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.

The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.

 

[cots]

Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).

Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.

The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.

You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Actually I do apologize. The joke only addressed a small group of people. I rephrased it. Sorry I wasn't more specific. It must be nice to sit on your high horse, refuse to admit your true intentions then avoid questions that would shine light on your actual motivations. You're not really that smart, but go ahead, cry about claims of violence to try to get me silenced. Liberals are great at lying and twisting facts, especially when the attention is on them.

I'm quite comfortable where I stand as I've been explicit and transparent. I'm also a person of my word so enjoy.

Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?

Again, I ask you. Does what I wrote in my first paragraph sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt? If you answer "yes" to either of them please do explain your position. I'm waiting.

Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election.

Yes, that sounds fair and accurate. Case closed! (I kid, I understand what your questions are. I'm going through sentence by sentence to ensure I give a proper assessment.)

She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent.

Do we have sufficient evidence to support your claim of colluding with foreign governments? Has she been charged/sentenced or is under any active investigation?

I had a thread that discussed the legality of the Steele Dossier and how it differs. I would refer you to it. I'm presuming this is what you are referring to, if not then please let me know.

The TLDR: Oppo Research is part of our elections. Foreign nationals (Steele) who work as informants for our FBI and/or our US based research firms appears to give them a pass. Maybe it is open to interpretation as to whether or not this should be an appropriate loophole. I feel like our law is ambiguous on this matter. I can't say if that ambiguity is intentional but I can say that Trump's case is far more straightforward. I don't know if I agree with this on a personal level but DOJ and FEC seemed to not raise any objections and I can't find any direct statute that would prohibit a US based company from being prohibited to hire foreign nationals.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/legality-of-steele-dossier-in-terms-of-influencing-us-election.549535/

In case you are curious as I've had time to give this more thought; I'm not agreeable to foreign nationals influencing our elections, but it is unfathomable to allow government to restrict who a private company can hire. As long as the company is based in the US I think it can do whatever it damn well pleases despite the loophole this creates.

This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement.

Let's start with what is easy. She did not start the Birther movement but she did have supporters who perpetrate it. Trump has supporters who are white nationalists but I... ok questionable example as some debate on that point. Let's just move on to say that out of the two candidates one actually did support the Birther movement even as late as 2011 and got publicly roasted for it at a White House correspondence diner by Obama himself. The comedian that followed Obama then continued to roast Trump in a manner that irked him more than we will ever know. It was first discovered around 2004 apparently.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats.

I argue that the main stream media includes anything that is pro-corporate anti-union, so that includes both right and left leaning networks. Now, while we might disagree on who owns the media due to my definition of main stream media, I think I can still give some insight. Trump had a narrow victory in a few crucial battleground states and won the election.

Now if the mainstream media was only owned and operated by the pro-corporate individuals, why would they give Trump so much free air-time during the republican primary? Ratings, which translates into corporate profits. Why would they latch on to anything controversial? Same reason. During that point in time, I don't think they anticipated Trump would win, however, it wouldn't hurt their corporate earnings either way - refer back to Trump Tax Cut). Therefore, they had no financial disincentive for Trump to win.

If you are referring to smear campaigns, Clinton was the subject of many for over two decades. I don't think Trump received anymore negative coverage during the general election than Clinton.

As far as the democrats cheating. Well I don't know was there gerrymandering or election fraud on behalf of the democrats that you can bring to my attention? Trump's own administration cleared doubts that illegal voters were voting in a post-election investigation.

They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket.

I've seen the multiple year old tweet of some obscure lawyer that now represents the whistle-blower. I'm sure there were people who would have been ready to call foul if Clinton won and those same people will do so if a Democrat won 2020. There are always going to be bad actors on both sides. The investigation into 2016 election meddling was required. We as a nation had to ensure our elections matter, and that they are not under any foreign influence. Trump had a Republican special counsel that worked in a professional manner. He didn't engage in political theater and did his job in a non-partisan approach. I don't know how much more you could ask for if you were an innocent man/woman. It's the ideal situation if you needed to clear your name.

That investigation wasn't fruitless btw, compared to the bengahzi and email scandal investigations for Clinton which produced not one indictment, the Mueller investigation led to multiple arrests and convictions.

As far as democrats or special interest spending in our media, this is done on both sides so I'm not sure how that would be unfair.

Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?

All this for the TLDR: based on all the points you have raised that I have provided my analysis - yes it sounds balanced - but I think the reason I will come to that conclusion and you will not is because we define mainstream media differently.

As far as whether or not Republicans should go along with the impeachment inquiry? If they have the evidence to refute any wrongdoing then, yes, absolutely. If they do not then I guess fight like hell and hope no other witnesses come forward and pray the courts somehow rule in your favor to not produce any related documents to an impeachment inquiry. I don't think democrats will wait for the courts to finish a ruling as it will just be appealed and hung up in courts for months. They will just move to serve an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?

It took time to ensure I gave a thorough answer. Patience is a virtue.

 

[urherenow]

You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?

More or less, you're on track. I personally don't recall Hillary being a birther (but Trump certainly was... although he was neither in office nor a candidate at that time). Don't get me started on her though... I could go on for days. I only retired last year from the military, so that BS with Benghazi still gets my blood boiling. I blame her for deaths of friends, and will never forgive or forget.

 

[cots]

I'm quite comfortable where I stand as I've been explicit and transparent. I'm also a person of my word so enjoy.

Yes, that sounds fair and accurate. Case closed! (I kid, I understand what your questions are. I'm going through sentence by sentence to ensure I give a proper assessment.)

Do we have sufficient evidence to support your claim of colluding with foreign governments? Has she been charged/sentenced or is under any active investigation?

I had a thread that discussed the legality of the Steele Dossier and how it differs. I would refer you to it. I'm presuming this is what you are referring to, if not then please let me know.

The TLDR: Oppo Research is part of our elections. Foreign nationals (Steele) who work as informants for our FBI and/or our US based research firms appears to give them a pass. Maybe it is open to interpretation as to whether or not this should be an appropriate loophole. I feel like our law is ambiguous on this matter. I can't say if that ambiguity is intentional but I can say that Trump's case is far more straightforward. I don't know if I agree with this on a personal level but DOJ and FEC seemed to not raise any objections and I can't find any direct statute that would prohibit a US based company from being prohibited to hire foreign nationals.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/legality-of-steele-dossier-in-terms-of-influencing-us-election.549535/

She used foreign nationals to investigate and smear Trump using falsified/fake information thus resulting in a 2 year investigation that turned out to not implicate him in any collusion. The data was also used to smear Trump during the campaign. This is just fine and dandy when Hillary does it? Why, because of some legality? Yet, it's not okay for Trump to request actual valid evidence of any wrong doing from a foreign Government that could be used in his upcoming election (that's if Biden is ends up his actual opponent). If per say the cooked up evidence Hilliary paid for was legit I could see it being valuable, but it wasn't. Yet we should hold Trump guilty of simply requesting something that may have turned out to be valid and also could have possibly shed light onto who was behind the fake collusion accusation. So the nasty bitch gets a pass because there's no specific law about it?

Let's start with what is easy. She did not start the Birther movement but she did have supporters who perpetrate it. Trump has supporters who are white nationalists but I... ok questionable example as some debate on that point. Let's just move on to say that out of the two candidates one actually did support the Birther movement even as late as 2011 and got publicly roasted for it at a White House correspondence diner by Obama himself. The comedian that followed Obama then continued to roast Trump in a manner that irked him more than we will ever know. It was first discovered around 2004 apparently.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

Okay, fair enough, but she used it to attack Obama and brought attention to it on a national scale.

I argue that the main stream media includes anything that is pro-corporate anti-union, so that includes both right and left leaning networks. Now, while we might disagree on who owns the media due to my definition of main stream media, I think I can still give some insight. Trump had a narrow victory in a few crucial battleground states and won the election.

Now if the mainstream media was only owned and operated by the pro-corporate individuals, why would they give Trump so much free air-time during the republican primary? Ratings, which translates into corporate profits. Why would they latch on to anything controversial? Same reason. During that point in time, I don't think they anticipated Trump would win, however, it wouldn't hurt their corporate earnings either way - refer back to Trump Tax Cut). Therefore, they had no financial disincentive for Trump to win.

If you are referring to smear campaigns, Clinton was the subject of many for over two decades. I don't think Trump received anymore negative coverage during the general election than Clinton.

I'm referring to the Liberal leaning media news sites. If you follow the money trail (who owns them) they all fall back on old rich white men pulling the nations strings. If you actually aren't blind enough and have an open mind and visit sites you don't agree with you'll see that CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC push a Liberal agenda, Fox pushes a Conservative and sites like BBC and PBS are much more balanced in nature. Sufficient to say the Liberals own most of the media that is consumed by the USA population on a daily basis - and it shows.

As far as the democrats cheating. Well I don't know was there gerrymandering or election fraud on behalf of the democrats that you can bring to my attention? Trump's own administration cleared doubts that illegal voters were voting in a post-election investigation.

I'm not talking about the normal dead people voting, the fact illegal aliens voted or the other various stuff that usually goes on. I was referring to Hillary's collusion with foreign nationals combined with the main stream media's smear campaigns which was using the falsified information. When you have the majority of the media posting bias material because they don't want you elected and a lot of it was based on a conspiracy theory obtained by collusion that is clear and cut evidence of having the deck stacked against you.

I've seen the multiple year old tweet of some obscure lawyer that now represents the whistle-blower. I'm sure there were people who would have been ready to call foul if Clinton won and those same people will do so if a Democrat won 2020. There are always going to be bad actors on both sides. The investigation into 2016 election meddling was required. We as a nation had to ensure our elections matter, and that they are not under any foreign influence. Trump had a Republican special counsel that worked in a professional manner. He didn't engage in political theater and did his job in a non-partisan approach. I don't know how much more you could ask for if you were an innocent man/woman. It's the ideal situation if you needed to clear your name.

That investigation wasn't fruitless btw, compared to the bengahzi and email scandal investigations for Clinton which produced not one indictment, the Mueller investigation led to multiple arrests and convictions.

As far as democrats or special interest spending in our media, this is done on both sides so I'm not sure how that would be unfair.

All this for the TLDR: based on all the points you have raised that I have provided my analysis - yes it sounds balanced - but I think the reason I will come to that conclusion and you will not is because we define mainstream media differently.

Foxi (the moderator) posted a link to a Wikipedia page that contains an overview of the impeachment attempts. All 10 are listed along with a history of the Democratic parties pledge to do so, which was being spouted about even before Trump won the election. I'm too lazy to look up the link, but there's far more than the lawyer that's representing the whisterblower tweeting that he was going to try to overthrow the current Government (which, by the way is exactly what's he's trying to do with his whisterblower).

As far as whether or not Republicans should go along with the impeachment inquiry? If they have the evidence to refute any wrongdoing then, yes, absolutely. If they do not then I guess fight like hell and hope no other witnesses come forward and pray the courts somehow rule in your favor to not produce any related documents to an impeachment inquiry. I don't think democrats will wait for the courts to finish a ruling as it will just be appealed and hung up in courts for months. They will just move to serve an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice.

I'd agree if this was the first attempt, but it's the 10th. If someone hated me and tried to have me arrested 9 times by filing false police reports do you really think the police or even myself would take them seriously on the 10th attempt? Do you really think I'd willingly cooperate when they'd simply try to use whatever I handed over them in their 11th attempt? I don't think Trump's hiding anything. I think he's refusing to allow this shit show to go on any longer.

It took time to ensure I gave a thorough answer. Patience is a virtue.

You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

More or less, you're on track. I personally don't recall Hillary being a birther (but Trump certainly was... although he was neither in office nor a candidate at that time). Don't get me started on her though... I could go on for days. I only retired last year from the military, so that BS with Benghazi still gets my blood boiling. I blame her for deaths of friends, and will never forgive or forget.

Okay, thanks. I just recall Hillary going around back in 2008 spouting the nonsense that Obama wasn't born in the USA. I wasn't aware she just latched onto a previous conspiracy theory, but she did bring it to national attention. I also wasn't aware you served our great country. Thank you for your service.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).

Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.

The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.

I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish but read every publicly released deposition. I'm probably the only person on this thread to do so, which isn't something to really brag about as I have invested alot of time recently into this hobby, but as long as I find it entertaining I'll continue.

Now lets see... We have a memorandum of the call, not the whole transcript. Zelensky is being asked a favor in that memorandum by President Trump. To put in perspective of the imbalance of power between the two leaders, Trump has everything Zelensky needs to ensure Ukraine can fend off Russia aggression. Trump could win in 2020 and they would still need to renew aid yearly so just next year they will need Trump to not block aid. Yea, I'm not able to take anything Zelensky says seriously, at this point I'd treat him as a hostage in a hostage negotiation.

The witnesses republicans want to call are not pertaining to whether or not aid was withheld but are trying to sway public opinion through validating the two requests Trump made to Zelensky in the July 25th call. I believe the logic is that if the public thought nothing was wrong in requesting those items and supported those investigations by having additional information then they would absolve Trump or at the very least suffer no blowback for acquitting him in the senate.

Let's return back to the memorandum to look at potential wrongdoing. No one addressed what I said on page 4 so I'll just quote myself below as it sums it up enough. You can add obstruction of justice to that as well.

I stand by what I said. If he's as innocent and intelligent as he claims I believe the republican minority would easily demonstrate to the American public that this is a farce and Trump has been a victim of a political hackjob. If he did this he would easily secure 2020 by defending himself through transparency of documents and delivering his testimony.

I've seen a private lawyer dictate our foreign policy vis-a-vis President Trump. I've seen Trump request a foreign entity to investigate a political opponent (twice if you count China). Any dispute to that?

Just to be clear, he could have used the senate during the past 3 years in office to launch a bipartisan congressional committee to investigate whether there was wrongdoing w/ Biden. It's been discussed this would have been the most proper manner to move forward if he wanted to target perceived domestic corruption by a previous administration that as 2020 nears also now involves a political opponent. I think there is a reason this option was not pursued. I think this is the better question to ask: "why are we not launching a senate bipart committee investigation." If people are truly concerned about acts of impropriety by a previous administration it would be best to start there and to be clear, the senate could do that even now, why aren't they?

 

[Xzi]

Ben Ghazi! Buttery Males!

I don't care much for Hillary Clinton, but it always gives me a laugh to be reminded that she'll forever live in Republicans' heads rent-free. Fox News really did a number on your programming. Y'all gonna be ranting about her on your death beds.

 

[cots]

Ben Ghazi! Buttery Males!

I don't care much for Hillary Clinton, but it always gives me a laugh to be reminded that she'll forever live in Republicans' heads rent-free. Fox News really did a number on your programming. Y'all gonna be ranting about her on your death beds.

Not me. I'm not even sure what the entire issue was about nor do I care. I do know a lot of time was wasted and the results turned out that whatever happened she wasn't charged with a crime. It's the same deal with the Russian collusion. I do however see some Conservatives still bringing it up. Unless you were personally involved you should just agree with the investigation and move on. This is the same thing the Liberals need to do with the collusion. This the same thing the Liberals need to do if Trump is not impeached. This is the same thing the Liberals should have done after Trump won the election. Take your loss and move on. You agree to the rules and lose then that's it. No bitching. I'm the type of person that'll take a loss and shake my opponents hand. Liberals will refuse to admit they lost and then stab the winner in the back.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish but read every publicly released deposition. I'm probably the only person on this thread to do so, which isn't something to really brag about as I have invested alot of time recently into this hobby, but as long as I find it entertaining I'll continue.

Now lets see... We have a memorandum of the call, not the whole transcript. Zelensky is being asked a favor in that memorandum by President Trump. To put in perspective of the imbalance of power between the two leaders, Trump has everything Zelensky needs to ensure Ukraine can fend off Russia aggression. Trump could win in 2020 and they would still need to renew aid yearly so just next year they will need Trump to not block aid. Yea, I'm not able to take anything Zelensky says seriously, at this point I'd treat him as a hostage in a hostage negotiation.

The witnesses republicans want to call are not pertaining to whether or not aid was withheld but are trying to sway public opinion through validating the two requests Trump made to Zelensky in the July 25th call. I believe the logic is that if the public thought nothing was wrong in requesting those items and supported those investigations by having additional information then they would absolve Trump or at the very least suffer no blowback for acquitting him in the senate.

Let's return back to the memorandum to look at potential wrongdoing. No one addressed what I said on page 4 so I'll just quote myself below as it sums it up enough. You can add obstruction of justice to that as well.

See you think that Zelensky is being pressured to not implicate Trump. What you think has no bearing on the issue at hand. It's like my previous example, you witness two people having sex and then assume because it was rough sex that one of the partners was being forced to have sex. You report the crime and both parties claim it was consensual. No matter how violent the sex was unless there was a video of one party refusing and clear cut abuse no one is going to consider what some bystander thinks about it over the word of the actual two people involved, especially if the bystander is involved with people who have filed 9 previous false reports. Now consider it's not even the bystander who saying this took place, but the person who is going to cops to report a crime is someone that overheard what the bystander claimed he saw. So the entire case against the two people involved is based on second hand testimony and assumptions. This is exactly why it's going to go nowhere in the Senate. It's not because the Republicans are in Trump's pocket. It's the 10th attempt. No one is taking the Democrats seriously anymore. They've cried wolf too many times. The only people taking this seriously are the Liberals who can't think for themselves. They're being told what to think.

Heaven forbid they start asking their masters questions that their masters have told them not to ask. Imagine what were to happen if the Liberals started to think things that they aren't allowed to think or say things they aren't allowed to say. As a Liberal you have to vote for who the Liberals tell you to vote for. You can't vote for you who want to vote for as you must vote for who they tell you to vote for. You have to pledge your hate for whomever they tell you to hate. You have to accept what they tell you to accept without question. You can't utter certain simple words or phrases. You have to accept any position your party takes and can't have your own opinions on them. You should also not ever publicly state that your opinion differs from your masters. You have to change your moral stance on issues at a whim to appease any new agenda. You have to abandon any previous stances or views based on these new agendas. All the while you must pay them for all of this. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. I suppose you could change and try to reject the other Liberals and start thinking for yourself, but you'll soon find yourself rejected and abandoned. Liberals will simply use you and have no desire to hear what you think ,they only want to hear what they think coming out of your mouth. Just try one time to say something that goes against their hive mind and just watch how fast they hang you out to dry. I guess this is what Liberals are scared of. Having to fend for themselves and be rejected. I'm not sure why being rejected from a group of people that simply want to control every aspect of your life, don't really care about you and would turn on you in a second for thinking on your own would be a bad thing. I guess independent thought would take effort. Imagine not being scared and having to do things for yourself. Oh my, the agony and responsibility of freedom.

Case in point. If you're a Liberal simply ask your Liberal buddies any of these questions "What do you guys think? Do you think that climate change could be caused by more than CO2? What if humans can't control the climate?" or "What would you guys think if I voted for a Republican Candidate. Would you still like me?". It's okay. After their reaction you can tell them "You're only kidding". Just don't tell them why you asked them in the first place (the fact you're questioning if they'd reject you). That's something you aren't allowed to do.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

She used foreign nationals to investigate and smear Trump using falsified/fake information thus resulting in a 2 year investigation that turned out to not implicate him in any collusion. The data was also used to smear Trump during the campaign. This is just fine and dandy when Hillary does it? Why, because of some legality? Yet, it's not okay for Trump to request actual valid evidence of any wrong doing from a foreign Government that could be used in his upcoming election (that's if Biden is ends up his actual opponent). If per say the cooked up evidence Hilliary paid for was legit I could see it being valuable, but it wasn't. Yet we should hold Trump guilty of simply requesting something that may have turned out to be valid and also could have possibly shed light onto who was behind the fake collusion accusation. So the nasty bitch gets a pass because there's no specific law about it?

So I can see how it may be unfair and slanderous but politicians get a pass because of free speech which is protected by the first amendment and cases like the McLibel case. I'm not versed enough in defamation or libel laws to explain in more detail. I could read and offer a guess but it would just be an assumption.

Trump's case wasn't spelled out clearly in that other thread because that thread was an offshoot from another thread. Historical references aside, hmm...

Ok so Trump's main sin, if you will, is that he requested a foreign national that represents first and foremost a foreign government - President Zelensky

Clinton paid for Fusion GPS which contracted Steele who happens to be a foreign national for oppo research. Steele represented a US based company that is providing a good or service and to my knowledge we don't allow the government to regulate that.
**I think she ended up getting in trouble by trying to claim her paid oppo research as legal advice and had to pay a fine. I can't recall and its getting late. **

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'd also like to add that it is up to the US government to validate someone's oppo research before launching an investigation but would again point out that there was legitimate interference in our 2016 election by the Russians.

 

[cots]

I'd also like to add that it is up to the US government to validate someone's oppo research before launching an investigation but would again point out that there was legitimate interference in our 2016 election by the Russians.

Yes, which Trump had nothing to do with. You didn't answer my others questions. Specifically;

You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?

 

[Xzi]

Unless you were personally involved you should just agree with the investigation and move on. This is the same thing the Liberals need to do with the collusion. This the same thing the Liberals need to do if Trump is not impeached. This is the same thing the Liberals should have done after Trump won the election. Take your loss and move on. You agree to the rules and lose then that's it. No bitching. I'm the type of person that'll take a loss and shake my opponents hand. Liberals will refuse to admit they lost and then stab the winner in the back.

"Collusion" is not a legal term, volume one of the Mueller report was about a potential conspiracy, and it was inconclusive. Though now that Roger Stone has been found guilty of all seven counts of crimes he was charged with, we do have evidence that Trump lied to Mueller in parts of his written testimony. Should be interesting to see how all that develops. As the saying goes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

As for the election, nobody contested the results. There were no recounts. Trump was sworn in as normal. You're playing the victim on his behalf, and for no reason. If you think the purpose of impeachment is to "overturn elections," you're entirely mistaken. That's like suggesting that kicking a college kid out for cheating on his exams is the same thing as overturning his admission.

We agree on the "moving on" bit though. Trump had two years in which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and got very little accomplished. Then Republicans lost the 2018 mid-terms badly, and they've since refused to take action on any bi-partisan legislation whatsoever. If Trump and McConnell think they can refuse to do their jobs while siphoning taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts without any consequences, they're sorely mistaken. Both the 2018 and 2019 elections have shown that the American people won't stand for it.