Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[cots]

It's not within Trumps power to withhold aid. The problem is he's over stepping his bounds as president. The are certain legal code guidelines for how to do this, getting more people involved so that presidents don't have too much power and abuse that power. It has to go through a process before its decided to withhold aid. Trump is not honoring the laws he vowed to withhold and not respecting what our founding fathers and us the people that make these laws. That is not a very patriotic thing to do and its basically giving kings power to a country that's suppose limit power of a single person, and all of us are suppose to be the ones involved in the decision making process.

He was in his right to negotiate directly with the Ukraine and to set conditions and temporarily withhold the aid. It's done a lot. Yes, he didn't follow protocol and do it like it's normally done, but there's no law stating he has to follow proper procedures. The aid was eventually delivered after additional negotiations took place. Other then Trump not following protocol (which isn't illegal) this sort of thing happens all of the time. We just don't hand out money without certain requirements and those requirements sometimes need to be renegotiated and aid often does get held up. Sometimes it's not even delivered at all.

Source: I called the Government and asked. Want to verify my claims. Pick one and make a call*.

* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)

 

[AmandaRose]

* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)

That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp

 

[SG854]

He was in his right to negotiate directly with the Ukraine and to set conditions and temporarily withhold the aid. It's done a lot. Yes, he didn't follow protocol and do it like it's normally done, but there's no law stating he has to follow proper procedures. The aid was eventually delivered after additional negotiations took place. Other then Trump not following protocol (which isn't illegal) this sort of thing happens all of the time. We just don't hand out money without certain requirements and those requirements sometimes need to be renegotiated and aid often does get held up. Sometimes it's not even delivered at all.

Source: I called the Government and asked. Want to verify my claims. Pick one and make a call*.

* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)

lol, you have a hard on for Liberals. You apparently can't have a conversation without mentioning the word liberal.



My source is a lawyer. And it is in the law books. 1974 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act, 31 U.S. Code 1512. President doesn't have authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. A President can only withhold funds under limited circumstances and only for 45 days. It's congress that has the power of the purse, Trump has spending power though OMB. But need to go through a process to withhold it.

September 2018 Federal Budget Passed.
Feb 2019 Administration says it will release aid to Ukraine.
Sept 2019 Funds are barely finally released, a whole year after the Federal Budget Passed, and far longer then the 45 days in the Impoundment Control Act.
The aid would've expired at the end of Sept if it wasn't released based on the congressional budgetary rules. So yes Trump not following the rules is bad.




He released aid after news was published about him withholding it and way after the house started investigating the whistle blower. So that defense is not a solid defense. You're claim is the same possibility I said a few posts back so you're not telling me anything new. The problem is that has it been confirmed to be true? There has been not strong counter evidence so far as to why aid was withheld. Everything you said is what other people are saying what might've happened. But not proven. Just speculation.

 

[Xzi]

So after all the bitching and moaning about how he "isn't allowed to defend himself," neither Trump nor the White House will be sending their lawyers to the judiciary hearings despite being invited. Seems they're aware that Republicans' half-assed excuses for the president's behavior have no substantive backing within the law. The sudden shift in strategy is quite telling.

 

[IncredulousP]

That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp

It's also worth mentioning that people in general get more liberal as they age. The somewhat recent observation of what seemed like the opposite was due to the once young conservative wave of youth replacing the once alive elderly liberals.
https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html

It seems people keep learning as they age.

 

[cots]

That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp

I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.

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

It's also worth mentioning that people in general get more liberal as they age. The somewhat recent observation of what seemed like the opposite was due to the once young conservative wave of youth replacing the once alive elderly liberals.
https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html

It seems people keep learning as they age.

I'm old. Most old people realize the Liberal fantasy was horse shit and either turn Conservative or Independent. There's a reason most "old" people voted for Trump. If you make it as far as I have you'll likely wise up a bit. I mean, half of what the Liberals in the USA teach you is okay will get you killed at an early age. Clearly, if you make it as far I have you would have had to ignore half the shit they teach you is healthy or never live the life style they're selling.

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

So after all the bitching and moaning about how he "isn't allowed to defend himself," neither Trump nor the White House will be sending their lawyers to the judiciary hearings despite being invited. Seems they're aware that Republicans' half-assed excuses for the president's behavior have no substantive backing within the law. The sudden shift in strategy is quite telling.

The "isn't allowed to defend himself" wasn't applied to Trump being able to show up - it was being applied to the entire farce. If you took a step back and exposed yourself to Conservative media like Fox News you'd realize that your quote was being applied to the entire impeachment process. This is what you get for only reading what's spoon fed to you - you're only getting half of the story. I'm sorry, but I read both Liberal and Conservative news so I get as much information I can to make an educated decision. You couldn't program a Switch homebrew if you ignored learning 50% of the C programming language because "it makes you feel bad". Fuck, the entire sham was rigged. There's no way if Trump showed up and played by their rules he would have gotten fair treatment. He'll show up in the Senate where it counts. There's no point in showing up and discussing anything with the traitors who pre-planned his impeachment and then looked for guilt. You know how fake scientists decide something is fact and then look for evidence. Kinda not how reality works kids.

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

lol, you have a hard on for Liberals. You apparently can't have a conversation without mentioning the word liberal.



My source is a lawyer. And it is in the law books. 1974 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act, 31 U.S. Code 1512. President doesn't have authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. A President can only withhold funds under limited circumstances and only for 45 days. It's congress that has the power of the purse, Trump has spending power though OMB. But need to go through a process to withhold it.

September 2018 Federal Budget Passed.
Feb 2019 Administration says it will release aid to Ukraine.
Sept 2019 Funds are barely finally released, a whole year after the Federal Budget Passed, and far longer then the 45 days in the Impoundment Control Act.
The aid would've expired at the end of Sept if it wasn't released based on the congressional budgetary rules. So yes Trump not following the rules is bad.




He released aid after news was published about him withholding it and way after the house started investigating the whistle blower. So that defense is not a solid defense. You're claim is the same possibility I said a few posts back so you're not telling me anything new. The problem is that has it been confirmed to be true? There has been not strong counter evidence so far as to why aid was withheld. Everything you said is what other people are saying what might've happened. But not proven. Just speculation.

I'll trust our Government and the aid to the ambassador I spoke to over some crummy lawyers interpretation of some old ass law. The wording you used isn't even proper English so I'm not going to bother watching the video you linked to. Plus, the Republican's in Congress filed some 100+ page report today basically stating what I've been saying on this forum for the entire duration I've been posting about this issue. I suggest if you want to understand your opponents defense you spend a little time and read over it. Clearly, if the majority of Republican's are claiming what he did is legit there's going to be some legal backing behind it. You do also realize that lawyers can say whatever the fuck they want to say and usually will say anything you pay them to say.

 

[ut2k4master]

I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.

i take it youve never even seen what an iq test looks like

 

[AmandaRose]

@cots you should read it as it was based on numerous tests including IQ scores ect ect. The liberals all scored much higher than Conservatives both in the USA and Great Britain. There are a huge number of other tests that have been done by different scientists over the last few years all with similar results. But hey its cool if you want to ignore the facts and continue to throw out immature insults like continuously saying libtards ect and making out Liberals are dumb when the facts say something entirely different. All your name calling is doing is making you look a tad ridiculous to be honest.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

There's nothing illegal with Trump withholding aid from Ukraine based on certain factors that don't include quid pro joe. Unless the Libtards can prove that Trump without aid for getting dirt on Biden they have no case. Withholding aid or "quid pro quo" for other reasons is perfectly legal. So yeah, there could be quid pro quo, but no proof of it was in anything that's been disclosed or testified yet. Assumptions aren't facts - assumptions don't shape reality. Even if Trump did withhold aid for "reasons" if those reasons weren't related to going after Biden, who remember, isn't even his fucking opponent, then good. It's how it should be, but there's no "quid pro joe" over Biden. That's the charge. Stick with what the Democrats are charging Trump of. Try to stay on topic. Seeings as the Libtards can't even figure out what they're accusing Trump of and there's no proof the aid was withheld over Biden you lost. Pack up and go home.

I'm going to fucking enjoy watching you backstabbing cowards try to play all of your hatred off when YOU LOSE AND TRUMP IS STILL IN OFFICE AND IS NOT IMPEACHED. You'll still deny you lost. Just like you attack him for every single thing he does. You're not fooling anyone. Pathetic losers. You lost in 2016. Why not accept this and work for the common good? Instead you plan impeachments and use the FBI to go after Trump based on conspiracy theories. Our President is a Russian agent? ROFL ... I wonder if there's a Liberal "gene" and if we can cleanse the world of it.

Trump will never win the primary.
Trump will never beat Hillary.
The Electoral College will never certify Trump.
The House will never certify Trump.
Trump will never get inaugurated.
The world economy will collapse if Trump is elected.
Trump will never last through 2017.
Trump will never get Gorsuch confirmed.
Trump will never last through 2018.
Trump will never get Kavanaugh confirmed.
Trump will never survive the Mueller investigation.
Trump will never last through 2019.
Trump will never beat the impeachment.

1 out of 13? Anyone want to bet with those odds?

Everything that liberals touch begins to corrode.

Cool story.

While yes, you could try to argue Biden isn't a political rival but that would end in failure on your part. Biden has publicly announced to run as a democratic candidate in the 2020 election. He is the national front-runner to this date in the democratic primary. He could potentially be a VP if he didn't secure the nomination of the democratic primary. That defense you tried to use isn't seen in any current republican talking point because it isn't even valid. Try again.

Attempted Bribery is a crime and there is ample evidence in witness testimony (even more so now that we know there was no record of a September 9th call - remember that article you ignored, maybe you should actually read it and the evidence that is within the witness testimony supporting the claim).

Soliciting a foreign government to meddle in a domestic election occurred in the transcript and is supported by witness testimony. Trump then solicited (Both Ukraine and China) on a nationally televised press gaggle on the white house lawn.

But let's go back to what I asked you about a week ago as you avoided that conversation for the 2nd time now. For us to discuss the predicament our President is truly in it is imperative that we start there.

Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.

Did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

 

[Deleted User]

@cots I sense that your going to say "it's not bribery if it didn't happen"
which to I reply, should attempted murder not be counted as murder because it was not successful?

 

[cots]

i take it youve never even seen what an iq test looks like

I had to take multiple ones throughout my life time. The last one was 15 some years ago for a tech related job. I rated slightly above average according to whatever was required for the job. I'm not sure what it was nor do I care. It's like Reddit karma. The shit has no basis in reality. I've met plenty of honest hard working people that might not be book smart, but what you do with your knowledge makes you what you are. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you value things that American Liberals do all you end up using all those smarts for is to destroy yourself and others. That makes you pretty stupid in the long run.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'll trust our Government and the aid to the ambassador I spoke to over some crummy lawyers interpretation of some old ass law. The wording you used isn't even proper English so I'm not going to bother watching the video you linked to. Plus, the Republican's in Congress filed some 100+ page report today basically stating what I've been saying on this forum for the entire duration I've been posting about this issue. I suggest if you want to understand your opponents defense you spend a little time and read over it. Clearly, if the majority of Republican's are claiming what he did is legit there's going to be some legal backing behind it. You do also realize that lawyers can say whatever the fuck they want to say and usually will say anything you pay them to say.

Um what kind of rationale is, the law is old (its about 45 years old) - so therefore it's archaic and not applicable for our government to follow it as written? An aid to an ambassador, Which one? I'll call them tomorrow and verify whether or not this law applies. Certainly you have a name for which person you spoke with that provided such information, right?

---
"The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment."
---

The majority of republican house members haven't argued much on substance. I only hear process and how its not fair. If you could give them a hand and link actual exculpatory evidence, I'm waiting. Heck a republican on the judicial committee will be waiting too as he wants senior members (former and current) to testify, I presume so he can get something to actually use for a proper defense for the White House.

---
Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California appeared on ABC's This Week Sunday and said that acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton should testify. That's whether or not federal courts rule that the White House can't squelch subpoenas and they are compelled to testify. "And in fact, yeah," McClintock said, "it would be to the President's advantage to have them testify now."
---

 

[cots]

@cots you should read it as it was based on numerous tests including IQ scores ect ect. The liberals all scored much higher than Conservatives both in the USA and Great Britain. There are a huge number of other tests that have been done by different scientists over the last few years all with similar results. But hey its cool if you want to ignore the facts and continue to throw out immature insults like continuously saying libtards ect and making out Liberals are dumb when the facts say something entirely different. All your name calling is doing is making you look a tad ridiculous to be honest.

Read what I just wrote to @ut2k4master TL;RD - IQ points don't mean you're smarter than other people. The choices in life define who you are. Thinking a simple number can represent the value of a person is pretty fucking juvenile. (Read what I wrote to him above)

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

@cots I sense that your going to say "it's not bribery if it didn't happen"
which to I reply, should attempted murder not be counted as murder because it was not successful?

Well, according to the ambassadors office I called and over a hundred GOP Congress members this method you're labeling bribery is a normal way of going about negotiating foreign aid. Something that's done so many times there's no official record of how much it happens. I mean, I guess you could take one random lawyers interpretation of some old law that may have been superseded, but lawyers are paid to lie for a living. As per the circumstances around this entire premeditated impeachment effort that was started without reason but to look for any reason, which the reason keeps changing I think you could understand my skepticism and will be questioning everything that the Liberals bring up (well, anything appearing to have substantial value). I watched 5 or 6 hours of the testimony and how the Liberals were handling the inquiry. Seeings as their star witness best case was "I assume quid pro joe" you can see how this is going to end up. What I saw didn't leave a positive impression nor gave them any credibility in what they were doing. Trump is innocent until he's removed from office - if he's never removed from office then he's not impeached.

 

[SG854]

I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.

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



I'm old. Most old people realize the Liberal fantasy was horse shit and either turn Conservative or Independent. There's a reason most "old" people voted for Trump. If you make it as far as I have you'll likely wise up a bit. I mean, half of what the Liberals in the USA teach you is okay will get you killed at an early age. Clearly, if you make it as far I have you would have had to ignore half the shit they teach you is healthy or never live the life style they're selling.

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



The "isn't allowed to defend himself" wasn't applied to Trump being able to show up - it was being applied to the entire farce. If you took a step back and exposed yourself to Conservative media like Fox News you'd realize that your quote was being applied to the entire impeachment process. This is what you get for only reading what's spoon fed to you - you're only getting half of the story. I'm sorry, but I read both Liberal and Conservative news so I get as much information I can to make an educated decision. You couldn't program a Switch homebrew if you ignored learning 50% of the C programming language because "it makes you feel bad". Fuck, the entire sham was rigged. There's no way if Trump showed up and played by their rules he would have gotten fair treatment. He'll show up in the Senate where it counts. There's no point in showing up and discussing anything with the traitors who pre-planned his impeachment and then looked for guilt. You know how fake scientists decide something is fact and then look for evidence. Kinda not how reality works kids.

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



I'll trust our Government and the aid to the ambassador I spoke to over some crummy lawyers interpretation of some old ass law. The wording you used isn't even proper English so I'm not going to bother watching the video you linked to. Plus, the Republican's in Congress filed some 100+ page report today basically stating what I've been saying on this forum for the entire duration I've been posting about this issue. I suggest if you want to understand your opponents defense you spend a little time and read over it. Clearly, if the majority of Republican's are claiming what he did is legit there's going to be some legal backing behind it. You do also realize that lawyers can say whatever the fuck they want to say and usually will say anything you pay them to say.

lol, nice dodge. Maybe you should take your own advice and understand your opponents defense and spend a little time to read over it an look into it.

 

[cots]

Um what kind of rationale is, the law is old (its about 45 years old) - so therefore it's archaic and not applicable for our government to follow it as written? An aid to an ambassador, Which one? I'll call them tomorrow and verify whether or not this law applies. Certainly you have a name for which person you spoke with that provided such information, right?

---
"The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after Train v. City of New York (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment."
---

The majority of republican house members haven't argued much on substance. I only hear process and how its not fair. If you could give them a hand and link actual exculpatory evidence, I'm waiting. Heck a republican on the judicial committee will be waiting too as he wants senior members (former and current) to testify, I presume so he can get something to actually use for a proper defense for the White House.

---
Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California appeared on ABC's This Week Sunday and said that acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton should testify. That's whether or not federal courts rule that the White House can't squelch subpoenas and they are compelled to testify. "And in fact, yeah," McClintock said, "it would be to the President's advantage to have them testify now."
---

I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself. You realize these are the same people that claim White Milk is racist and that being obese is healthy.

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

lol, nice dodge. Maybe you should take your own advice and understand your opponents defense and spend a little time to read over it an look into it.

On you issue. No thanks. Not interested.

 

[SG854]

I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself.

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



On you issue. No thanks. Not interested.

On you issue?

The word you used in not a proper English therefore what you post is invalid.

 

[cots]

On you issue?

The word you used in not a proper English therefore what you post is invalid.

You're catching on skippy. Want a treat?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself.

That's really odd. You are someone who states they want information from actual people who do this stuff all the time but can't even recall a name or anything for me to use to call to validate this claim? How about caller-id in your phone? Can you provide the number you dialed? Was the aid a man/woman? Do you at least remember a given title when the individual answered the phone?

 

[SG854]

You're catching on skippy. Want a treat?

What the fuck is skippy? Speak English.

 

[cots]

That's really odd. You are someone who states they want information from actual people who do this stuff all the time but can't even recall a name or anything for me to use to call to validate this claim? How about caller-id in your phone? Can you provide the number you dialed? Was the aid a man/woman? Do you at least remember a given title when the individual answered the phone?

Due to the entire (this info could be used to identify me with unspoken rule) I won't be providing specifics. There's a list. Hit up the embassy website of the random person you chose. Make the call. She said she was a top aid. It was maybe 1 or 2 weeks ago?!? I've had some sleeping problems for the last few months and time gets fussy when you never know how long you're going to be awake or how long you're going to be asleep. I can tell you it's going to bring up a rather large charge on my cell because it wasn't in the USA. I mean, if you don't believe me then it wouldn't hurt to call a couple to verify I'm full of shit, would it? While you're at it don't forget about asking the actual question regarding how basic aid works. I did however not mention Trump by name. I figured there was a 50/50 chance she would have been biased if I mentioned him directly, but figured she pretty much knew why I was asking to begin with. Just saying "Trump" in front of someone with TDS makes them go all batshit stupid. I'll also at least remove one embassy from your list - I didn't call Ukraine.

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

What the fuck is skippy? Speak English.

See definition #2

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skippy

Skippy

Any misguided individual who is in blatant denial and/or so completely deluded as to be completely beyond reasoning with.

Sometimes used to address just any hapless individual.

Statement: "I don't care what anyone says! I'm still right!"

Response: "Yeah... You just keep telling yourself that, Skippy."