Will the Dems accept the outcome of the impeachment?
It appears as if enough Senators have stated they don’t want any further evidence or witnesses. Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski were the last ones to say they didn’t. That means the Senate can put the matter to a vote as early as tomorrow. If it comes down that Trump is acquitted, will the Dems accept that or will they consider it invalid? And if they consider it invalid, will they continue with their silly witch hunts?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
94 Answers
Will Trump actually step down if he loses in November?
@elbanditoroso Of course he will. Despite the claims he is lawless, he has not broken any laws. He has never said he would not step down. He has not hinted at that. Unless there is some weirdness with the vote, if he loses, he will turn the reins over to the next POTUS. And by weirdness, I mean it would have to be something odd like 120% of a state’s population voting.
The republicans made it clear from the beginning that they would acquit, no matter what.
One of the reps who voted against hearing new witnesses even said that the dems have already proven, that drumpf did what he is accused of.
They are all complicit, and everybody knows it.
@seawulf575 I agree with @ragingloli – the vote was fixed from the beginning – the outcome was preordained. And I think all the dems know that, and knew that 5 months ago.
It’ll have to be accepted. But there’s no rule that says a person can’t be impeached a second time.
The Dems will have to accept it but hopefully Moscow Mitch and the other enablers will be voted out of the Senate and another trial might be imperative down the road.
If the Senate doesn’t do exactly what the Democrat impeachment managers demand, they are guilty of a cover-up,
I will accept it because I am so sick of trump I could scream. At this point we need to concentrate on voting him out.
Nobody expected him to be found guilty by the Republicans. But we got everyone on record.
Most likely Trump will not be president in a year. 354 days to be precise. And you guys will turn your back on him just like you did to W once he no longer has any power. But we have your weasle-words on record and it is going to make it real easy to come up with the opening line of your obituaries.
This is your legacy. You were warned.
Which sane fair-minded American who loves his or her country could accept the sick jokes that are Republican Senators? Really.
Does it matter? Nobody expected the Republicans to pursue this with honesty and integrity in the first place. Before the trial even began Cocaine Mitch publicly stated “our position will be whatever the White House’s position is.
Trump has been impeached. Nothing can change that.
Will he be removed form office? It’s looking doubtful…
Will the Democrats accept it? Do they have a choice?
Like @Darth_Algar said: “Does it matter?”
They may accept the decision but not the reasons.
However would the general public accept it?
If Trump gets away with all that he has done to throw integrity out the window, I bet that there may be mass protests to get him Out.
Let’s hope this drives record votes out to vote in the upcoming election and let the people have their say.
With the decision to not allow witnesses, the Democrats will say that the impeachment trial was not a fair trial and thus the result is illegitimate. So no, I don’t think they will accept it.
@Demosthenes
Because then it would not be a trial at all, since it requires witnesses.
There were eighteen witnesses against the president. The president wasn’t allowed witnesses in the House inquiry. What more do you want?
I find it a bit funny that when people on the right were saying how partisan the inquiry was and what a sham it was, those on the left felt it was perfectly fine. Now those same people are saying the Republicans aren’t being fair. Huh.
For those of you that believe you have to have witnesses for it to be a trial, please, show your sources. I know of nothing that says that at all. In fact, this entire trial in the Senate has been modeled after the Clinton impeachment…following the same flow path. If the majority of the senators don’t feel any more information is needed, there is no need to go further. That is the process, as I understand it. I will say the Senate has been FAR more fair than the House was.
For there to be a trial, there has to be witnesses and evidence. Nancy Pelosi said that. And anyone who has ever seen the Perry Mason TV show a number of times knows it.
There were eighteen witnesses, @kritiper .
They were all on the side of the democrats. Trump was not allowed witnesses or representation until ths went to the senate. There were plenty of video testimony and thousands of documents.
@Yellowdog “The president wasn’t allowed witnesses in the House inquiry.”
He had ample opportunity to have witnesses testify in his defense. He blocked every single one from doing so. An innocent man demands testimony on his behalf. A guilty man seeks to avoid it.
I heard Trump was forbidding witnesses to testify, now @Yellowdog says Trump wasn’t allowed any witnesses .
DO YOU REALLY EXPECT US TO BELIEVE THAT?
The Rep/cons went into this screaming there was NO quid-quo-pro now they say yeah there probably was but it doesn’t matter.
He is going to be acquitted anyways.
Probably not. Sense of decency, appropriateness, and charge seems to have escaped the entire party. They are not elected and paid to use their office for nothing but pure politics. Their incentive must be beyond comprehension. The dem’s impeachment was bullshit in toto. In the meantime, there is actually governing that needs to be done.
No one says that there was a Quid Pro Quo, @SQUEEKY2 ,
What was said was, an inquiry into the Bidens, had it been looked into, was justified, and would not have risen to the level of impeachment.
The Ukranians themselves, the supposed victims, have debunked this claim. Your own representatives and media have been proven to be lying to you. Deal with it.
@Darth_Algar Time to face reality again. No republican witnesses were allowed. The Dems set the ground rules and one of those was that Adam Schiff had total control over what witnesses would be allowed and which wouldn’t. Anyone that wanted a witness had to request it and Schiff would decide. Not a single witness the Repubs wanted was allowed. You can’t claim that witnesses the Dems wanted were witnesses for the president. Some of them were blocked because of national security issues. And to be honest I felt it was congressional overreach anyway.
@SQUEEKY2 the Whistleblower claimed quid pro quo. The transcript proved that to be a lie. The Dems pushed for quid pro quo. Zelenskyy said there was no pressure. The Dems tried saying holding up aid until an investigation was done into Biden was quid pro quo. Zelenskyy said he hadn’t even known the aid was held up and he never announced or started an investigation into Biden. There was no quid, there was no quo. What you suffer from is an overdose of lying media. The facts don’t support the Dems at all, but they just keep lying and the media gives them positive coverage.
@Yellowdog If there were witnesses, why weren’t they at the Senate trial?? And the trial was held in the Senate, not in the House. Or did you forget that??
With about 75% of the American public wanting to hear from any witnesses and see any other documents, and not being abled to do so, I think there will be plenty of fresh faces in Congress in the next few years.
@kritiper I think one important witness would have been the whistleblower. The Dems demanded he come and testify right up to the point that it came out he had contacted Schiff’s office prior to writing the complaint. Suddenly, Schiff was reversing his claims of the day before and stating that not only is he not needed to testify, it is imperative we keep his identity secret in accordance with whistleblower laws…which is complete bullshit. Nowhere does it say a whistleblower is to be kept anonymous and, in fact, it flies in the face of common sense. Yet Roberts made it abundantly clear that they couldn’t even say his name, much less have him testify. So the guy that started this whole hoo-haw is completely off limits?
And you are right, the trial is in the Senate. But like most trials, all the investigation should have been done prior to it going to trial. Tell me a single trial where a person is accused and the investigation is done in the trial? It isn’t. Witnesses are called to show what they know to the jury. But they have already been interviewed and their pertinence on the case is already established. Witnesses as part of a fishing expedition is patently idiotic. In this case, the Dems wanted to rush through an impeachment charge so they could say “Look! Trump was impeached!” That is their sole purpose. That is why they did a piss-poor job of building a case. None of their “witnesses” had actually witnessed anything except one or two, and they testified that there was no quid pro quo. They didn’t even have crimes they were citing as reasons for impeachment. And they certainly didn’t do their due dilligence in investigating fully. So they started a trial with accusations as their only basis. Blame them that the case will not hold up.
”.....” That is their sole purpose.”..
No their sole purpose is to expose the truth of what is taking place behind the scenes.
All Whistle blowers identity are protected , otherwise NO ONE would report wrongdoings!
As for poor Trump not allowed to present his witnesses….. it would be safe to assume that since in the past and his character to buy allegiance or threaten to cut off support that he would therefore do same as he had been doing all his life..bribing!
Hence no credibility would come from Trump.
Face it he IS a criminal President in the White house leading the country downhill ever since he came into office.
( read the background on Trump in the book Collusion..it is eyeopening and astounding that he made it this far and that Some people Love him)?
The whole World has lost respect for the U.S. and the present President.
Funny. In the previous impeachments, against Nixon and Clinton, the DOJ commissioned special investigators to perform the investigations.
But Barr being a corrupt fat slob, did nothing. Hence the whistleblower concluding the need to blow the whistle.
Then Drumpf obstructed the House investigation, by refusing to hand over subpoenaed documents, and ordering his underlings to disobey subpoenas to testify.
@Inspired_2write Here’s the problem with your thought that all whistleblower’s identities are protected. First off, it’s not true. They are protected from retaliation…that is the purpose of the law. But anonymity is never mentioned. But right now, we suspect we know who the whistleblower is, but because they have pushed to keep his anonymity even from Trump, he could get retaliated against and would have no claim. If Trump decided that Eric Ciaramella was just a piss poor performer, he could fire him or send him to a weather station in Antarctica. And since he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, because they have kept him anonymous, you couldn’t hold Trump guilty of retaliation. Yes, it probably would be retaliation, but try proving that. With anonymity, retaliation would be impossible to prove. How do you say someone was targeted when no one knows they are the whistleblower?
@seawulf575 So he must be identified so then if there is retaliation against him the public will know?
Did I get that right?
Or a good ole boy red neck might find it his/her opportunity to off the rat as their patriotic duty, then what do you say, sorry?
If the identity of the whistleblower was ever made known, the Republicans would figuratively hang them and his/her life would be ruined. It would be a worse fate than being black listed.
@SQUEEKY2 if you blow the whistle on your boss, but he doesn’t know it was you, how can you say he retaliated against you if he does? You can’t. If he fires you, you can say it was retaliation, but if he never knew it was you, he couldn’t “retaliate”.
@kritiper So? Think about this for a moment. He wrote up a complaint that was not even anything he witnessed and pretty much every thing he wrote was wrong. Basically, he made up a story. How does that give him any semblance of integrity or respect? He caused all sorts of problem for others with his lies.
@seawulf575 ”...but if he never knew it was you, he couldn’t retaliate.”
Yeah, but some other poor bastard might get the retaliation instead. Is that fair??
@seawulf575 Being admissible in court, and under threat of a contempt of court charge, it would be seen as the truth. Remember that in a court of law, one is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Or do you not agree with that??
@seawulf575 I don’t understand your right wing thinking, if the boss didn’t know you were the whistle blower how can you say he retaliated against you if he fires you?
HUH?? well then he had a justified reason for firing you or he is just an asshole.
YOU didn’t address the fact that a crazy right winger might find it in themselves to take out the whistle blower because he made serious accusations at their orange haired god.
I think that President Trump knows who was in his Ukrainian visit entourage. A few minor guesses and he could intuit who was the whistleblower. Or he could attack the whole lot if he needed.
Except, pf course, the whistleblower had no first hand knowledge. He claims to have heard it through a series or chain of hearsay accounts.
No one on the call testified to tis, and we have the transcript.
How come people that have read the transcript keep saying Trumps says in it (we would like you to do a favour for us though) that doesn’t sound good.
You have the transcript he sent out.
Sorta the same as Bill showing a photo of Monica NOT blowing him and him saying see no crime here.
@Yellowdog you go right ahead and keep believing he is innocent,I think he is guilty as shit and covering it up, I am NEVER going to convince you he is guilty and I accept that.
BUT YOU are never going to convince me he is innocent either so lets just leave it at a stalemate ok?
And no I am not falling for the evil left wing media, I am going by his shady private life, his behaviour in public life, his thug like demeanour in his public life.
He some what confesses on half his ranting tweets.
So you love the guy great buy into his rants, and lies, but don’t expect us to as well.
STALEMATE ok?
The House can accept the process, as in, they will not pursue Trumps removal in any real way, while still voicing disapproval. A censure could be something done if someone wants to feel good, while achieving little, but I expect this is done, from a legal perspective. Both side have their sound bites, coffers are full, lines have been drawn, Iowa is in two days, GO! It’s election season baby!
@kritiper Some other guy could get punished…yep. All the more reason to air the name out. Let the whistleblower laws do their job. Once more the Dems only want to follow parts of the law. And in the end, while you are calling it punishment, I would call it performance based actions. If I was in the POTUS position and found out one of the guys working relatively close to me had discussed with another guy who had been working relatively close to me that they were going to work to get rid of me, I’d have them on the street, no longer working for me. That has nothing to do with any complaint filed. And since we don’t know who the whistleblower is, it couldn’t be construed as retaliation.
As for being in a court of law, think about the course of actions that would have to occur. Let’s paint the scenario. In a true whistleblower case, the whistleblower identifies a problem and raises the concern. So at that point he is protected from retaliation because of the WB laws. But he is also known. If the boss retaliates…demotes him, fires him, gives him the crappiest of jobs…the boss has now violated the law. The WB has legal recourse. He could take the boss and the company to court and would likely win a very large lawsuit because at this point he was known to have been a WB and was retaliated against.
Scenario two: The WB writes a complaint but doesn’t want anyone to know he was a WB. The boss is given no knowledge of who complained. But he hasn’t liked this guy (the WB) for sometime and decides it is time to fire him. So he does….just like he might do with any poor performer in his organization. Now the WB tries saying “HEY! I’m protected because I filed a complaint. I’m going to sue!” So it goes to court. Now the case is different. He now has to prove the boss knew he was a WB and that was why he was fired. Since he made sure the boss wouldn’t know who complained, he’s going to have a much harder time. And at this point the Boss is the accused. And you are right…he is innocent until proven guilty. So now it is incumbent on the WB to show the proof that he was fired solely for being a WB…a task that he made infinitely harder because he pushed for anonymity. He now has to prove the knowledge path that gave the boss his name as a WB prior to him being fired. He might be able to do that, he might not. But at this point the Boss and the company are not as much of a slam dunk as if the WB had been named.
@SQUEEKY2 I hope the answer I just gave to @kritiper helps you understand. In Trump’s case, there is evidence of Eric Ciaramella conspiring to get rid of Trump. That would be enough of a reason for most bosses to fire someone. And at this point, ostensibly, Trump hasn’t been told he was the WB.
@RedDeerGuy1 How could Trump tell who the WB was? The WB himself, in his complaint, stated he had no first hand knowledge of anything…he heard it all through the grapevine supposedly. So it really could be anyone.
@SQUEEKY2 We have read the transcript. Have you? Trump asked for a favor in it, sure enough. Do you remember what that favor was? They were talking about some of the past corruption that had gone on in Ukraine and some of the sketchy things. Trump asked Zelenskyy if he could do the favor of looking into Crowdstrike and any possible interference in the 2016 election. Now I don’t know how it is in Canada, but if our country or people from it were part of corruption in another nation or used another nation to help interfere in an election, it would be the responsibility of the POTUS to investigate. He’s the ultimate head of the DOJ…the top cop so to speak. Biden wasn’t mentioned until later as an example of other oddball things…Hunter Biden to be specific. Biden was mentioned as sort of an afterthought. It is only the lies of the left that have turned the entire thing into a request for Ukraine to investigate Biden and to dig up dirt on him for political reasons.
They accepted the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most have resigned themselves to the fact that the reps are spineless cowards who aren’t going to allow it to happen. The best that they can do now is give us an ass kicking candidate for November and I sure wish they’d find one
@seawulf575 You can’t assume that a person in court who has sworn to tell the truth will lie under oath. Maybe you don’t understand how the American judicial system works…or you don’t care…or you like playing devil’s advocate and are trolling for an argument.
@kritiper I’m not assuming anything. If you do something to me, but keep it a secret as to who it really was, I would not know who did it. Plain and simply. If, in the process of things I took some negative action against you and you got mad because you felt I was retaliating for your secret action, how do you resolve it? If I never knew it was you, the negative action against you would have been for some other reason. If you put me on the stand, I could honestly say I never knew it was you. It would be the truth, not a lie. Meanwhile, your entire case against me for retaliation would fall apart…because you wanted to play “I’ve got a secret!”
The question is pointless, EXACTLY as Darth has stated. It’s all in that word “accept”. Of course they will accept the verdict of the Senate—then move immediately to the NEXT impeachment. If you want to understand what this whitewash by Senate Republicans amounts to, review the acquittal record of Al Capone. Trump’s criminal tentacles are at least as extensive as those of Big Al and unlike Trump’s role model, subject to intense world wide active investigation. How long do you imagine he might hold out?
@stanleybmanly I suspect the Dems will whine long and loud about how an acquittal is not a valid result because the Senate didn’t do the House’s job for them. As for the next impeachment, bring it on. So far the Dems tried Russia and Ukraine. What’s next…Latvia? Here’s the problem with the Dems’ efforts: they are based solely on made up shit and they don’t actually apply to any laws. Look at Russia collusion: Much of it was based on the Steele Dossier which was proven to be a load of crap. Yet the corrupt Obama holdovers used it as a basis to spy on Americans and Political opponents. Sound familiar? Using the power of the office to dig up dirt on your political opponents? And now we are finding that several of those FISA applications were found to be fraudulently obtained and therefore, anything they got would be inadmissable in court. Even Flynn is seeing if he can pull back his guilty plea. Oh! and Collusion is not a crime. Then, after you and the other lemmings swore up and down that Mueller was sewing the net tight around Trump, the report comes out and says no US citizens were knowingly involved with Russia’s efforts to interfere in our election. In relation to this question, you guys didn’t accept the answer. You swore up and down that there was more to come. It never happened. Then we get the Whistleblower complaint. Huge deal, right? Except Trump did what the Dems didn’t count on…he released the transcript that showed the whistleblower was full of shit. He made shit up, claimed he heard it basically through the grapevine. That doesn’t even qualify as a legitimate complaint. So again, the Dems are trying to use a lie to build a case. This time they tried keeping the Repubs from actually having any say at all in any investigation. They took hearsay evidence and tried to elevate it to the level of fact. They took opinion and tried to use that as the foundation for saying a crime was committed. In the end, they accused him of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Neither of those is a crime either. So they took a lie, built a half-assed case using entirely partisan means, ignored facts, and accused Trump of no crimes….and said that was a solid case for impeachment. And it is falling through. So what next? Another mysterious lie they will try to build on? Here’s a clue…AMERICANS ARE TIRED OF THEIR GAME. By the time the build the “next” case, Trump will have finished winning the next election.
What’s next? The breathtaking smorgasbord of opportunities for prosecution of this dummy is damned near limitless. Your truly tiresome references to fatuous steele dosier or Hillary server nonsense—no one gives a shit, and your pathetic insistence on reanimating such long refuted inane dinosaurs receives exactly the attention and credibility it deserves—claptrap and hooey worthy of the birther advocates and snake worshiping possum devouring illiterates.
By the way, the Russian collusion charges are BACK, and this time with a vengeance. Parnas, and Giuliani are on the direct road to sealing proof positive evidence of their funneling a million dollars of Russian money into Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Your boy is being smoked on a rotisserie from all sides like the prize turkey he is and you should brace yourself for the inevitable roasting. Perhaps that is the wrong analogy. It might be more accurate to state that Trump’s enemies now have the tools and incentive to cook him alive —a fate befitting his lobster complexion.
@stanleybmanly Do you ever get tired of being so far off base you aren’t even in the same ball park as reality? You swore up and down he was toast with Mueller. You guaranteed he would be removed from office with Ukraine. So far you are 0 and 2. And still you make wild guarantees about how horrible things are for him. Need to check that hatred, sir.
As for the Steele Dossier, it plays directly on this topic. If the Dems and their lemmings won’t accept the blank truth of the Mueller report…that No US Citizens were involved…You certainly won’t accept an acquittal on the impeachment.
Again you miss the point. You are one dense customer! I will more than accept the acquittal on THIS impeachment as well as the next if it happens. What I WILL NOT accept is the delusional notion that Stinky’s troubles are over or that there is a chance in hell that they SHOULD be. What you must accept is that what’s coming down the pike is beyond overwhelming and this slug WILL be buried in the deluge.
Mueller said his report DID NOT exonerate Trump, he just couldn’t press charges at that time.
Then Trump and you fright wingers went around screaming he has been cleared and exonerated from any wrong doing with Russia.
And didn’t the Mueller report say there was indeed collusion with Russia?
Mueller didn’t prosecute because the prevailing legal opinion is that Presidents can’t be prosecuted, and impeachment is the only real way to hold a President accountable. He basically said that he did the leg work, but prosecuting the case was up to congress.
Actually, the Mueller says there was no evidence that anyone on the Trump team colluded with Russia, and that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion on an obstruction charge.
Moscow Mitch? Cocaine Mitch?
I thought we were better than Trump and his grade school name calling.
We know Trump is guilty and our system is broken. Nothing can change the fact that Trump is on the short list of impeached Presidents.
“Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”
It seems pretty clear that the Dems will never accept any verdict that does not remove Trump from office. They have been trying to impeach him since before he took office and will continue to try long after he has left office. Evidence, facts, or any other criteria have no affect on this irrational hate. The House will continue to investigate to come up with any dirt they can find, to sling at the President. Unfortunately the economy is doing great, and the Dems can’t stand that. They are running out of free stuff to try and bribe the electorate into voting for them. It’s not working and that makes them even more irrational.
The Constitution makes it very difficult to remove a sitting President. That was intentional. The Constitution works. Unfortunately I expect the Dems to continue this charade for the next five years. We can hope for a little sanity but I doubt we’ll see it.
@Jaxk It is not irrational hate. His lies, his mockery of anyone, his affairs, his embracement of North Korea and Russia makes the hate real and rational.
You forget @chyna EVERYONE except conservatives see that, to them he is a victim of an endless hate campaign brought on by the democrats out of jealousy from losing the 2016 election.
@chyna yes, nothing says “I embrace you!” like slapping sanctions on someone.
@seawulf575 You are going to have to provide a link as to where Trump imposed more sanctions on Russia.
From our Canadian news we kept hearing he wanted to lift the sanctions Obama had put on Russia.
If you read the fact check one, it talks about that as well. He didn’t really back down, he lightened the sanctions on specific businesses, not on the wealthy individual or even on all his businesses. Nor on any of the other sanctions.
Your last link is an opinion article, and I wont even bother reading it considering how you slam others for linking blogs or opinion articles..
The others were interesting.
I only slam others because they slam me for exactly that same thing. Opinion articles are sources of information…not to be taken blindly, but as starting points for digging into the facts. I recently had a couple interactions with @Dutchess on different threads about opinion pieces. She wanted to ignore a citation out of hand so she called it an opinion piece and not a valid link. Then, on a different thread, she cites a blog, tries saying it’s the BBC, and got huffy when I pointed out to her that it was a blog…an opinion piece.
On my piece from The HIll, it gives links to other sites in the body of the story. In this case, it talks about new sanctions and cites a CNN story. It talks about him upholding existing sanctions and it cites a CBS news story. Like I said, they can be good starting points.
Here’s the deal. The claim that the turd’s impeachment is driven solely by partisan hatred bears some examining. And the examination should commence with the question as to whether there is any merit to the allegations. THAT is the constitutional function of the impeachment process, and the ONLY process mandated by that document delegating any oversight on the conduct of the President. The question then is whether or not the President’s conduct crosses the line in abuse of his oath office. In other words, has the dummy committed questionable acts worthy of formal investigation by the House? And the answer to that one is not only blatantly obvious; but more to the point, the 2 charges the House has laid before the Senate are but drops in the proverbial lake of credible allegations confronting our stable genius. It is therefore silly to contend that Democrats are somehow cheating by fishing that lake, while it teems with criminal fish beyond number. The Dems can’t float a boat in that lake without those fish virtually hopping in to the point of swamping it. You boys should face up to the fact that a primary reason Trump is and will continue to ride the impeachment train is because, no one in the history of this country has provided more plausible “opportunities” for impeachment. It doesn’t matter whether hatred drives the show or not. Face it boys. The target is not only too juicy to pass up, but turd defense is clearly one of those detestable jobs destined to leave all those employed in the business on the wrong side of history. Gear up fellas for the next round.
@stanleybmanly You missed a very vital part about your entire diatribe…the allegation. You never stopped to question it. You asked the right question: is there any merit to the allegations. Well, let’s review. It started with THE allegation…the whistleblower’s complaint. So let’s see if there was any merit in it. He stated in his complaint that he had no first hand knowledge of anything. So right there, it’s hearsay and has no merit. But let’s dig deeper. He claimed that Trump pressured Zelenskyy and demanded 8 times in the phone call for Zelenskyy to open an investigation into Biden. This has two parts, both of which were debunked, and three claims that fall apart. First is the pressure on Zelenskyy. He has stated publicly, several times, that there was no pressure, that it was a good phone call. So that piece is a no-fly adding to the lack of merit in the allegation. Second, he also was very specific that Trump demanded an investigation into Biden. That was debunked when Trump released the phone transcript for everyone to see. There was no demand. There was a request to look into Crowdstrike and any other things that seem oddly corrupt. Hunter Biden was mentioned in this as was Joe Biden, but only because of Biden’s bragging about coercing the Ukrainian government. So the allegation of a demand was bogus and detracts even more from the allegation. And lastly, the WB claimed Trump demanded 8 times for an investigation into Biden. The word “Biden” was mentioned exactly 2 times, and one of them had the qualifier of “Hunter” in front of it. So basically nothing the WB had to say in his complaint was true. So the allegation has no merit. Guess that solves your mystery. AND it confirms my claim that everything the Dems did was nothing but partisan politics…using the impeachment process as a really lame attempt to smear their political rival. They have stated this was their goal since before Trump was sworn into office. To come to any other conclusion is a joke. Or delusional.
Ok. Even if every word you wrote is true, 1. Trump held up the aid without explanation to the Congress, his own State department, and department of defense. 2.The whistle blower’s allegations REVEALED the hold up AND the phone call asking for the “favor”. 3.There is a parade of career civil servants of distinguished and impeccable record attesting to the validity of the whistle blower’s concerns, and lastly 4.there is the absolutely undeniable effort on the part of the turd to obstruct the constitutionally mandated obligation to oversee him AND his branch of government. That particular luxury will almost certainly be denied the fool as settled law in time for the rash of subpoenas for the next in the line of impeachments to follow. I look forward with glee to the stewing of STINKY in his own juices.
@stanleybmanly wow. just wow. Okay, let’s deal with them as you list them.
#1 – Trump has the legal right to hold up aid until he is sure it isn’t going into someone’s pockets. Ask the OMB. They do it all the time and have for decades. I listed an article that showed Obama did it multiple times, and no one cared. That’s sort of how it works with the separation of powers. The Congress says we have to give aid and how much. The POTUS is in charge of dispersing the funds. But that includes ensuring they aren’t wasted.
#2 – Again…the WB allegation was a a made up story. You really might want to ask WHY it was a made up story about a phone call with a relatively minor country (to us). Ever stop to think about that one? Since it was made up the answer is NOT that Trump did anything wrong. And Trump did ask for a favor…to look into possible Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Isn’t that a big deal? Wasn’t that the whole reason for the Mueller investigation and the 10’s of millions of dollars wasted on that fairy tale? You need to actually get your WHOLE story straight instead of putting out half-truths to lead you to innuendo.
#3 – There was a parade of career civil servants, that is true. But again, in another half-truth, you go on to muddle it with lies and opinions. “Distinguished and impeccable” are not words that would necessarily describe all of them. Some, not all. Also, their testimony did not attest to any validity. In every case, the people had zero actual first hand knowledge of anything. When asked they testified that they had “heard from someone else” or “no, I have never actually met the President”. That is a weak and made up as the WB complaint. And lastly, most of their testimony was that they didn’t like Trump’s foreign policy…they felt he was handling it badly. There’s a simple solution for that….they can run for and get elected to POTUS and then they can set the foreign policy.
#4 – Obstructing Congress (a) isn’t a crime and (b) you forget the part that Congress does not have control over the other branches of our government. Congress does not get to TELL the Executive Branch what to do. Trump did the exact right thing…he challenged the validity of the subpoenas. That is absolutely his right and his responsibility. And so far, those challenges have not been resolved. Blame your Dems for rushing things if you feel they were vital to this case.
Interesting conclusions you draw as well. You assume that there will be some “next” impeachment. I suspect the Dems know they are already on very thin ice politically. To drive into another impeachment would hurt them probably irreparably. So while you revel in your own (usually false) predictions, just know in the back of your mind that you are probably wrong.
If your hatred hypothesis has even an ounce of truth, why would the dems walk away from such a cornucopia of opportunities for crushing the turd. There isn’t a day that passes without more sludge rising from the Trump cesspool—impeachable sludge. What do you honestly expect from not only the Democrats? How long do you suppose the conservatives can carry the “it ain’t a turd” emperor’s new clothes fantasy and remain a viable entity in the face of repeated and mounting overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Of course more impeachments are coming. The evidence as well as the Democratic base both insist on it, and your fool is the world’s juiciest living opportunity for prosecution. What do you honestly expect to come of this? Where’s the good news for Stinky?
@stanleybmanly think for a moment before you write. A cornucopia of opportunities for crushing the turd. If there was so much ammo, why have they come up with zip squat in all their efforts? Even their impeachment didn’t list any crimes. I think you need to check your premise.
To begin with, as the Clinton impeachment illustrates, crimes are not required to bring the dummy up on charges. But you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to state they came up with “zip squat” on this jackass. But even if you believe his current impeachment lists no crimes, you can bet your ass that no stretch will be required in shopping for suitable crimes in the next trip before the House, or for that matter, in any of the series pf impeachments that will plague the turd for the remainder of his term. As THIS procedure clearly demonstrates, the credible list of allegations against the turd, exceeds the creative capacity of even you wing nut conspiracy junkies.
@stanleybmanly Again….think before you write. Clinton WAS impeached on crimes. Perjury and Obstruction of JUSTICE are crimes. This impeachment with Trump has nothing except Democrat foolishness.
Like Mueller, it is but a preview of what is to come. The festering turd WILL be eliminated
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” – Marco Rubio
Straight from the rep’s mouth. They know he is guilty, but they do not give a shit.
Yes. But that’s now. This is by no means the end of it. They will have more than enough opportunities in the near future to decide when it’s best for THEMSELVES (screw the country) to unload the turd.
You know, @stanleybmanly you keep using the term TURD. Just curious, would you live near SF? I could understand how “turd” would come to mind so often, if so.
As you once told us “a turd is a turd”. Stinky’s synonym is convenient because it is recognized by YOU in the hollers. Do you think the ordeal has ended for Stinky?
I think if the Dems are SMART (which so far they haven’t shown), it will end. All this waste of time and money on witch hunts has turned people against the Dems. Moderate Dems are horrified by where the party is going and Independents recognize how loony they really are from the top to the bottom. Trump’s approval rating is at an all time high. The more the Dems push on silliness (and that is what it is) to stronger their opposition becomes. So let’s play a what if game. What if Trump wins in November and is POTUS for another 4 years. Already the Dems have shown they do nothing except hate Trump. So if they go after him for the next 4 years, they will basically tell the entire country that they are nothing but self-serving bureaucrats that don’t care a hill of beans for the people that elected them. I mean look at San Francisco. Human crap and used needles just lying on the streets and the Speaker of the House is the representative from that district. What has she really done for them? Not a damn thing. But how much effort has she put into trying to persecute Trump? A whole ton. So give it another 4 years of nothing but hatred from the left and you can pretty much be assured the Repubs could nominate Daffy Duck and would probably win the 2024 election.
Daffy has both a cleaner record AND better qualifications than Stinky! But that’s another discussion. So you think the Democrats should just roll over and ignore Trump’s “irregularities”? That’s the smart move? Was that the Republican approach to the Obama Presidency?
And the crap on the streets in San Francisco may seem offensive, but leave it to the hillbillies to plop the biggest turd ever from the streets of New York smack dab in the White House.
If you like to talk about turds so much, just look at the dystopian filth and excrement in the democrat controlled sanctuary cities, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco. Is that the America you want?
There are still many very wealthy democrats in their gated communities, but it is a foreshadowning of Venezuela but with more rag tents, needles, and turds.
I suppose you must have a point. There will be less poop on the abandoned streets in places where nobody wants to live. Is that the choice San Francisco—the Caracas of America or bustling Bugtussle where YOU live happily ever after?
Are you referring to the Democrats’ Iowa Caracasses?
@Jonsblond _“Moscow Mitch? Cocaine Mitch?
I thought we were better than Trump and his grade school name calling.“_
Tell that to Mitch McConnell, who actually sells a “Cocaine Mitch” t-shirt on his campaign website.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
