The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

You think every POTUS who invited his donors to a White House Dinner is guilty of bribery?

Do you think that congressionally approved tax payer money is different than a political campaign contribution?

[knapplc]

8 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

people who aren't anti-Trump

 

It baffles me that there are any people who are not anti Trump, knowing what we know.

 

 

[NM11046]

35 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It baffles me that there are any people who are not anti Trump, knowing what we know.

 

 

I'd take the leap and say anyone who supports him at this point is unAmerican.  

 

(and yes, I expect that will trigger people and it should.  If you are ok with this than you are not a good citizen of this country and what it stands for.  If you can read the Constitution and just say, "nah, doesn't really matter right now cuz this guy is chosen by god and we're getting stuff we like" then you are unAmerican)

[BigRedBuster]

 

[QMany]

14 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Congrats on knowing the alleged quid pro quo was for a White House meeting, not foreign aid.   

It was for both.

 

14 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Nobody is legally entitled to get their picture taken with the President and he can condition it on anything he wants 

"Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act. A jury could conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on a pending matter. And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal." McDonnell v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).

[Nebfanatic]

11 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Against corruption law or not, as evidenced by polling results, you'll have a hard time convincing people who aren't anti-Trump that what he did was wrong - because most people actually want to know what's up with Burisma.

Thats fine if people want to know what is up with Burisma. Its fine if Trump wants to know whats up with Burisma. But that needs to go through his buddy Bill Barr. I don't care what polling says, I care what the Constitution says

 

8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

You think every POTUS who invited his donors to a White House Dinner is guilty of bribery?

Did those donors desperately want a WH meeting and did that President attempt to pressure something out of those donors with said meeting hanging in the balance? Because if so, yes they would also be guilty of bribery.

[Nebfanatic]

15 minutes ago, QMany said:

It was for both.

 

"Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act. A jury could conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on a pending matter. And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal." McDonnell v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).

It was for both, and that is clear, but Republicans will stick their head in the sand about the aid and say 'well it got released and yada yada yada'. They are much more inclined to admit the WH meeting was for sure conditioned on the investigations but what is funny about that is its still bribery either way. One is just degrees worse.

[knapplc]

Bolton hasn't been subpoenaed because he's the whistleblower. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

It's interesting seeing into the mind of a Trump supporter.  We sat through a number of testimonies of people in the field doing our country's foreign policy in Europe and specifically in Ukraine.  All of them said that their understanding was that the military aid was dependent on them announcing they were going to do an investigation into the Bidens.  Understand that they said Ukraine didn't actually have to do the investigation.  They just needed to announce it.

 

NOW....we have Trump supporters saying....well, you guys are making this big of a deal just about conditions on a simple Whitehouse meeting?

It's like they either didn't listen to the testimony and only watched Hannity to tell them what to think.  OR...they did listen to it and choose to spread disinformation about the testimony.  

It's really an interesting thing to watch.

[Nebfanatic]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's interesting seeing into the mind of a Trump supporter.  We sat through a number of testimonies of people in the field doing our country's foreign policy in Europe and specifically in Ukraine.  All of them said that their understanding was that the military aid was dependent on them announcing they were going to do an investigation into the Bidens.  Understand that they said Ukraine didn't actually have to do the investigation.  They just needed to announce it.

 

NOW....we have Trump supporters saying....well, you guys are making this big of a deal just about conditions on a simple Whitehouse meeting?

It's like they either didn't listen to the testimony and only watched Hannity to tell them what to think.  OR...they did listen to it and choose to spread disinformation about the testimony.  

It's really an interesting thing to watch.

This is partially my fault because I wanted to simplify things to facts we could agree on in an earlier convo with NotreDameJoe. But the point I was making is the bolded isn't ok either. Like it or not that is STILL bribery right there alone.

 

Thats the thing about this. You break it down to the simplest terms and its still flat out wrong. Even if nothing was conditioned, asking Zelensky to investigate an American citizen as a favor is highly alarmimg. Then you throw in the WH meeting it becomes an attempt to solicit a bribe. Then you throw in the aid and it becomes an attempt to solicit a bribe with taxpayer money and with national security and lives on the line. No matter how far you go with the facts its bad, and it just gets worse.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Thats the thing about this. You break it down to the simplest terms and its still flat out wrong.

 

So, basically, you have to simply it down for them to a specific issue...then they come back with, "Is that all you have"?  

Well....no.....it's just that you weren't understanding (or are choosing to ignore) all the other stuff that I had to leave out to simplify it down for you.

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

So, basically, you have to simply it down for them to a specific issue...then they come back with, "Is that all you have"?  

Well....no.....it's just that you weren't understanding (or are choosing to ignore) all the other stuff that I had to leave out to simplify it down for you.

Exactly this haha

[ActualCornHusker]

40 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

1)Thats fine if people want to know what is up with Burisma. Its fine if Trump wants to know whats up with Burisma. But that needs to go through his buddy Bill Barr. I don't care what polling says, I care what the Constitution says

 

2)Did those donors desperately want a WH meeting and did that President attempt to pressure something out of those donors with said meeting hanging in the balance? Because if so, yes they would also be guilty of bribery.

 

1) That's definitely fair.

 

2) Yes. That literally happens with every president who has ever been in the White House - with foreign powers as well as the rampant pay-for-play that's gone on for decades, probably longer... 

[Nebfanatic]

11 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Against corruption law or not, as evidenced by polling results, you'll have a hard time convincing people who aren't anti-Trump that what he did was wrong - because most people actually want to know what's up with Burisma.

I have to ask. If the situation with Burisma is so concerning, why didn't Nunes investigate when he was head of the intelligence committee for 2 years? Why hasn't our AG, appointed by Trump, investigated the matter? Why doesn't the CIA or FBI take a look over the last 3 years? Why is it coming up now, and why does Trump have to ask the leader of a foreign country known for corruption to do the investigating? Curious to say the least

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

1) That's definitely fair.

 

2) Yes. That literally happens with every president who has ever been in the White House - with foreign powers as well as the rampant pay-for-play that's gone on for decades, probably longer... 

Proof of the second point please

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

2) Yes. That literally happens with every president who has ever been in the White House - with foreign powers as well as the rampant pay-for-play that's gone on for decades, probably longer... 

Give me an example of a President doing this with a foreign government for personal gain instead of something he wants from a foreign government as far as foreign policy.