Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[ryoder 1,381]

Shokin was fired for failing to pursue corruption;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-called-this-ex-ukrainian-prosecutor-very-good-but-he-resigned-in-disgrace/2019/09/25/d1410aa2-dfb1-11e9-be7f-4cc85017c36f_story.html

 

[billvon 2,392]

26 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

For the Democrats, this has never been about getting to the truth or about serving their constituents, all this is about for them is power and an inexplicable hatred and rage towards DT.

Which power-hungry hateful democrat said this?

"A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

[ryoder 1,381]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Which power-hungry hateful democrat said this?

"A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

I'll take Lindsey Graham for $400, Bill!

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Which power-hungry hateful democrat said this?

"A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

Lindsey Graham. Nice one, Bill.

[DJL 232]

25 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

Joe Biden has acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the natural gas firm Burisma Holding where Biden's son Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board...

This is the crux of the issue and something you're wrong about.  Biden, Obama and pretty much all of the Western powers involved in assisting Ukraine in its move from corrupt Russian influence wanted his removal because Shokin was sandbagging his investigations, including his investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma holdings.  Once he was gone it was validated that Shokin was doing nothing to look into Zlochevsky and Burisma.

So to correct your statement above, Biden acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was NOT investigating Zlochevsky and Burisma Holdings where Biden's son Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board...

[jacobdouglastx 1]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

This is the crux of the issue and something you're wrong about.  Biden, Obama and pretty much all of the Western powers involved in assisting Ukraine in its move from corrupt Russian influence wanted his removal because Shokin was sandbagging his investigations, including his investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma holdings.  Once he was gone it was validated that Shokin was doing nothing to look into Zlochevsky and Burisma.

So to correct your statement above, Biden acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was NOT investigating Zlochevsky and Burisma Holdings where Biden's son Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board...

The DT call transcript also indicates that the current Ukraine government is more than troubled about the Bidens' actions and on their own is continuing to investigate that activity. In addition to that, the President of Ukraine continues to say there was no pressure from Trump.

Also, the OBAMA administration pressured Ukraine’s prosecutors to drop the investigation into the BH gas company that employed Hunter Biden and to look for new evidence in a then dormant criminal case against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The Obama White House and DNC DIRECTLY solicited Ukrainian officials to get involved in the 2016 campaign by asking for dirt on Manafort and by asking Ukrainian President to speak on U.S. soil negatively about Paul Manafort. That is far worse than what the Democrat accuse Trump to have done...

In short, the D.C. Democrats want to impeach Trump for activities that pale in comparison to what people in their party has been doing for years.

[billvon 2,392]

4 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

In short, the D.C. Democrats want to impeach Trump for activities that pale in comparison to what people in their party has been doing for years.

We have seen this progression literally dozens of times over the years here, going all the way back to the days of GWB.

"Trump (or GWB) didn't do it!"

"OK Trump did it but it's not that bad."

"Obama (or Clinton) did it first."

[DJL 232]

31 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

Also, the OBAMA administration pressured Ukraine’s prosecutors to drop the investigation into the BH gas company that employed Hunter Biden and to look for new evidence in a then dormant criminal case against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The Obama White House and DNC DIRECTLY solicited Ukrainian officials to get involved in the 2016 campaign by asking for dirt on Manafort and by asking Ukrainian President to speak on U.S. soil negatively about Paul Manafort. That is far worse than what the Democrat accuse Trump to have done...

You need to provide your sources on these events including when they happened. 

Manafort was under investigation going all the way back to 2014 (https://fortune.com/2017/09/19/paul-manafort-fbi-surveillance-donald-trump-russia/ ), two years before he joined Trump's campaign (March 2016 https://fortune.com/2017/03/22/paul-manafort-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/ )

EDIT:

Are you talking about THIS?

https://fortune.com/2017/09/19/paul-manafort-fbi-surveillance-donald-trump-russia/

Because that meeting is still months before Manafort was involved in Trump's campaign.

Edited September 27, 2019 by DJL

[jacobdouglastx 1]

The Trump call transcript indicates that Trump asked for assistance with an ongoing DOJ investigation, which, Andrew McCarthy rightly said, is not a violation of the law. There is a treaty between the U.S. and the Ukraine that was signed by President Bill Clinton that is entitled the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. That treaty binds the respective countries to provide "documents, records and other items" to each other upon request.

The Trump call transcript does NOT indicate Trump withheld aid in exchange for election help against Biden. There was no quid pro quo. The Democrats sold a false story. They have been crying wolf since Nov. 2016. This is a dangerous precedent to set for future presidents. 

[jacobdouglastx 1]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Which power-hungry hateful democrat said this?

"A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

Lindsey Graham is a goof and I do not agree with this.  Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not when a political party disagrees with a rightfully elected official. That goes for both parties... 

[billvon 2,392]

9 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

The Trump call transcript indicates that Trump asked for assistance with an ongoing DOJ investigation, which, Andrew McCarthy rightly said, is not a violation of the law. 

If it was a clearly legal, routine request for assistance, Trump would not have tried to bury any record of the call.  And he would now not be trying to shift blame onto his lawyers.  And he certainly wouldn't call anyone who legally reported about this fully legal action "close to a spy."  His own actions indicate that he did not want anyone to know what he did.

Once again, Trump is his own worst enemy.

[billvon 2,392]

6 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

Lindsey Graham is a goof and I do not agree with this.  Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not when a political party disagrees with a rightfully elected official. That goes for both parties... 

I am sure your views will "evolve" next time we have a democratic president - just as Graham's have.

[DJL 232]

16 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

The Trump call transcript indicates that Trump asked for assistance with an ongoing DOJ investigation, which, Andrew McCarthy rightly said, is not a violation of the law. There is a treaty between the U.S. and the Ukraine that was signed by President Bill Clinton that is entitled the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. That treaty binds the respective countries to provide "documents, records and other items" to each other upon request.

The Trump call transcript does NOT indicate Trump withheld aid in exchange for election help against Biden. There was no quid pro quo. The Democrats sold a false story. They have been crying wolf since Nov. 2016. This is a dangerous precedent to set for future presidents. 

I agree, I don't think the conversation is a clear quid pro quo.  I think he needed to keep himself out of it just so we don't have this Dumb-Watergate going on but I agree that the President may feel free to discuss and push for investigations.

[jacobdouglastx 1]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I am sure your views will "evolve" next time we have a democratic president - just as Graham's have.

Grahams apart of "the Swamp", he is a follower and goes which ever way the wind blows.  I tend to not hold double standards...

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

If it was a clearly legal, routine request for assistance, Trump would not have tried to bury any record of the call.  And he would now not be trying to shift blame onto his lawyers.  And he certainly wouldn't call anyone who legally reported about this fully legal action "close to a spy."  His own actions indicate that he did not want anyone to know what he did.

Once again, Trump is his own worst enemy.

We need to know who personally called for the records to be kept hidden because that indicates who understood that the conversation could be damaging.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, jacobdouglastx said:

For the Democrats, this has never been about getting to the truth or about serving their constituents, all this is about for them is power and an inexplicable hatred and rage towards DT.

Inexplicable?

 

Quote

Everyone can speculate what DT "meant" with his phone call, but when you get down to it, there was no quid pro quo... Biden is the one who actually extorted a foreign nation by withholding US support.

But not for personal or political gain. In other words, he was being a professional diplomat. Trump was looking for party political favours.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

16 minutes ago, jacobdouglastx said:

Lindsey Graham is a goof and I do not agree with this.  Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, not when a political party disagrees with a rightfully elected official. That goes for both parties... 

And what is the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. If you think it has anything to do with the criminal code, you need to do a bit more reading.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

10 minutes ago, DJL said:

I agree, I don't think the conversation is a clear quid pro quo.  I think he needed to keep himself out of it just so we don't have this Dumb-Watergate going on but I agree that the President may feel free to discuss and push for investigations.

Do you think it would be appropriate for the president to call state prosecutors in the US and tell them that many people are saying that Elizabeth Warren is doing something illegal and that they really should look into that?

 

Edited to add: abuse of power does not need to have an explicitly stated quid pro quo.

Edited September 27, 2019 by SkyDekker

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

10 minutes ago, DJL said:

We need to know who personally called for the records to be kept hidden because that indicates who understood that the conversation could be damaging.

Hi DJL,

As I posted in another thread:  Nixon did not resign because of the Watergate break-in, but because of the subsequent cover-up.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Do you think it would be appropriate for the president to call state prosecutors in the US and tell them that many people are saying that Elizabeth Warren is doing something illegal and that they really should look into that?

 

Edited to add: abuse of power does not need to have an explicitly stated quid pro quo.

Since Clinton the standard for impeachment has been smarminess. I see no reason to change now.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

Since Clinton the standard for impeachment has been smarminess. I see no reason to change now.

And Republicans always argued that the blowjob was wrong, because there was a power imbalance between the two. Also known as an abuse of power. Yet, Clinton never said; suck my dick or else. That would be an explicit quid pro quo.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Do you think it would be appropriate for the president to call state prosecutors in the US and tell them that many people are saying that Elizabeth Warren is doing something illegal and that they really should look into that?

If it were out of the blue then it wouldn't be appropriate.  If there was a news bubble telling Trump that she did something illegal then I would expect him to discuss it in the course of a conversation.  In this case that has not been shown to be the reason for the call and there has been a news bubble (albeit tinfoil hat level) about Biden and his son's relationships in Ukraine.  If further records and information show that Trump initiated the call specifically to get dirt on Biden then that swings it closer to what you're talking about.

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi DJL,

As I posted in another thread:  Nixon did not resign because of the Watergate break-in, but because of the subsequent cover-up.

Jerry Baumchen

Yup, my first reaction when reading the whistle-blower report was that the call was small potatoes compared to the work involved in hiding the conversation.  It looks like Trump and Co quickly realized that it was in the open and chose the smart path of opening up all the information to limit the damage on that behalf.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

 

 

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And Republicans always argued that the blowjob was wrong, because there was a power imbalance between the two. Also known as an abuse of power. Yet, Clinton never said; suck my dick or else. That would be an explicit quid pro quo.

Maybe, as Trump did to Zelenskyy, he just asked for a favor. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by JoeWeber

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

If it were out of the blue then it wouldn't be appropriate.  If there was a news bubble telling Trump that she did something illegal then I would expect him to discuss it in the course of a conversation.  In this case that has not been shown to be the reason for the call and there has been a news bubble (albeit tinfoil hat level) about Biden and his son's relationships in Ukraine.  If further records and information show that Trump initiated the call specifically to get dirt on Biden then that swings it closer to what you're talking about.

The news bubble is easy to create. Fox News will start reporting anything they are told. That will allow the president to start calling around for investigations and you think that is appropriate.

I clearly don't.

 

(people realize this investigation started prior to Biden being part of this company right?)