Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
And just remember that if the Senate had not been Republican and had actually considered the evidence he would be toast.
Not true. Even if the Dems had controlled the Senate, it still would have taken a lot more than 1 Rep vote (Romney) to convict Trump in the Senate. It takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict. The Dems had 60 members in the Senate for a brief time when Obama was president. Even with 60 Dems, it still would have taken 7 Reps to vote to convict to remove Trump. Not happening. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
And just remember that if the Senate had not been Republican and had actually considered the evidence he would be toast.
trump is a low-life piece of shit who isn't fit to be president.
He has lied so many times and abused his power so many times they all run together.
Don't worry. He'll be taken care of in Nov.
They considered the evidence as did I. We saw a transcript of the phone call. What was illegal? And did it reach a level of an impeachable offense? No it did not. Add to that the FACT that 60 House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump the day he took office. What does that tell you? That number was up to 100 I believe before the Ukraine call ever happened.
This was a partisan witch hunt. Even Nancy Pelosi broke her own words when she said the House shouldn't move forward without a bi-partisan support and what was the final vote? Not a single Republican voted Yes and two Democrats voted no. There was the bi-partisan vote against impeachment.
Why do you over-compensate for your lack of education?
The people you call elites aren't better than you because they have a high school diploma. They are better than you for numerous reasons.
The main being your lack of critical thinking.
Since trump has already been impeached, the particulars in the Constitution concerning impeachment don't need my review.
Now do I have to tell you that you need to review the particulars or can I assume you'll STFU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
i would recommend the Blue Meanie read the Constitution regarding Impeachment of the POTUS.
a thought doomed to failure - those of Teacher's Unions educations are not capable of comprehending the Document by which our nation is Ruled.
BM understands not the implications of Acquittal in the Senate Trial (except for bill clinton).
a very Sad, Sad thing for Blue Meanie and the country.
Why do you over-compensate for your lack of education?
The people you call elites aren't better than you because they have a high school diploma. They are better than you for numerous reasons.
The main being your lack of critical thinking.
Awww gee, dickmuncher...
We all know you have serious self-esteem issues, but is it really necessary for you to try and ameliorate them by trash-talking the educational status of your fellow eccie members? Does it make you feel better to defend "elites" (defined as anyone who advanced further at more prestigious institutes of higher learning than you were forced to attend... cough, cough...) and look down on anyone who criticizes them?
Have you considered hanging out with Lucas McCain? That guy has three (count 'em - 3!) Ivy League degrees! If you schmooze him enough, I'll betcha he'd be happy to engage you in dazzling intellectual conversations of the kind "elites" have with each other all the time. You might even begin to feel like you have more in common with them than you do with the rest of us ignorant common folks. And wouldn't that be therapeutic for your battered self-esteem?
Beats hitting the bottle again, dontcha think?
Of course, those "elites" are always right, even when they're wrong.
Of course you fail to see the difference. Your version is pretty far off the mark.
I'll try to help you but you aren't worth much of my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I think I'm acting the same way Democrats acted after the impeachment of Bill Clinton which amounts to and please pardon my French, who the fuck cares, he is still President. The only thing that happened was a political vendetta against Trump.
Funny you would see a legitamate issue as part of a vendetta.
I'll warn you upfront that the material to counter your bullshit is extensive.
You have followed your pattern of presenting misrepresented information as fact.
No threat was made, we continued to help our ally, there was no interruption in aid and the President has the Constitutional authority to review any and all aid packages.
President Donald Trump, who last year froze hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid for Ukraine, claimed “they got all” of it “long before schedule.” That’s false.
The freeze that Trump directed lasted about two months last summer and not all of the money was later disbursed on time. Congress had to grant an extension to ensure the government could spend any federal funds on assistance for Ukraine that had not been contracted out by Sept. 30, which was the original deadline set by Congress.
In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported in November that the Department of Defense still had not disbursed more than $35 million of its $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine. And, as of December, there were still $20 million in unobligated defense funds for the U.S. ally, the newspaper discovered.
A Pentagon official told us that, as of Jan. 23, the department had “executed 99.8% of the funds” for Ukraine and was “working to obligate the remainder.”
Trump’s decision to hold up the funding, and then ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, is one reason a majority of House members voted to impeach Trump in December. The Senate, which will either convict or acquit the president, began its impeachment trial this week.
When the trial started on Jan. 21, Trump was in Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum. A day later, during a press conference with other administration officials, the president made the claim about Ukraine getting its U.S. assistance on time.
Trump, Jan. 22: Now, here’s the other thing: They [Ukraine] got their money long before schedule. They got all their money. What nobody says — this is very important to me: Why isn’t Germany paying? Why isn’t UK paying? Why isn’t France paying? Why aren’t the European nations paying? Why is it always the sucker — United States?
It’s not true that Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other European nations don’t provide aid to Ukraine. As we have written before, the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and launched a conflict in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
And Ukraine did not receive its aid from the U.S. “long before schedule.”
For fiscal year 2019, Congress authorized $391 million in security assistance, including training, equipment and other support, for Ukraine. Of that amount, $250 million was appropriated to the Defense Department for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and $141.5 million was allocated to the State Department for the Foreign Military Financing program. The funds were meant to be spent by those departments by Sept. 30, 2019.
In June, the Defense Department announced its plans to provide the $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine. However, in July, Trump directed the White House Office of Management and Budget to put the aid on hold. He also had OMB block the assistance from the State Department.
It wasn’t until about two months later, on Sept. 11, when the White House — under pressure from members of Congress and administration officials — released the money.
But because the Defense Department was required to wait another 15 days before it could begin obligating the funds, it wasn’t able to spend all of the money before the end of September, when the federal fiscal year ends.
Congress had to add a provision to a continuing appropriations bill — which Trump signed into law on Sept. 27 — allowing the unspent funds to be used in fiscal year 2020.
Mark Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security at OMB, testified at his Nov. 16 deposition that approximately $35 million had been left unobligated by the Defense Department. Those funds, he said, “would have expired” if not for Congress stepping in.
Then, three days later, the Los Angeles Times reported that those funds still had not been spent, according to Pentagon documents the newspaper reviewed. And the following month, on Dec. 12, the Times reported that about $20 million in aid “still hasn’t reached Ukraine.”
That demonstrates all funds did not go out on schedule, as the president said.
In an email, a Pentagon spokesperson told us that, as of Jan. 23, all but 0.2% of the $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine has been obligated.
In a Dec. 11 letter to the Government Accountability Office, which later ruled that the aid freeze violated federal law, general counsel for the OMB, Mark Paoletta, said the State Department obligated the $141.5 million for Ukraine before Sept. 30
The Democrats are quick to say nobody is above the law and it was responsible and prudent to see if Joe Biden and his family were complicit in financial improprieties or is it illegal and unethical to look into possible illegal improprieties?
Another trumpy talking point. The alegations were made by trump with no evidence any improprieties had occured. trump directly requested the investigation.
And you fail to see the difference between a no evidence trump requst and a "no" answer from democrats?
Not hard pressed at all.Democrats would be hard pressed to answer no to that question, all things considered about their own dealings.
And with all the discussion of whether a quid pro quo is legal or not, when the former VP bragged about doing just that, an investigation isn't warranted? When 2016 election improprieties happened and Ukraine played a part in trying to discredit Trump, separate and apart from what Russia did, which Ukraine admitted to, an investigation wasn't warranted?
The question of is quid pro quo illegal has been answered many times. Yes, it is illegal.
And once again you lie about Biden. It is a lie by you because it has been debunked many times.
Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine
President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed the prosecutor general who “was prosecuting” Biden’s son, Hunter.
In May, Ukraine’s top prosecutor at the time said the younger Biden — a former board member for a gas company in Ukraine — was not investigated.
“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News. Lutsenko, who resigned in August, said a corruption investigation into leaders of Ukrainian gas companies concerned a potential money-laundering transaction that had occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board.
We wrote about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine four months ago, when the president made a similar claim in May on Fox News. In that interview, Trump said that “the [Ukraine] prosecutor was after his son,” referring to Biden’s son, Hunter.
Trump has raised the issue again in recent days in response to reports that he pressured the newly elected Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens during a phone call in July. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump urged “Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with [Trump’s personal attorney] Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.”
Biden is a leading Democratic presidential candidate, and consistently tops Trump in early general election polls.
Trump called Zelensky on July 25 to congratulate the new president of Ukraine on his election. In remarks to reporters in Houston, Trump described his conversation with the Ukrainian president as “perfect.” He then went on to twist the facts surrounding the removal of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, in 2016.
Trump said Biden threatened to withhold U.S. assistance to Ukraine unless it fired Shokin, which is true, but then implied without proof that it was done to protect Hunter Biden from prosecution.
Trump, Sept. 22: Joe’s got a lot of problems. Joe’s got enough problems without that. But what he said was a terrible thing. And, you know, he really made it a — it was an offer. It was beyond an offer. It was something where he said, “I’m not going to give billions of dollars to Ukraine unless they remove this prosecutor.” And they removed the prosecutor supposedly in one hour. And the prosecutor was prosecuting the company of the son and the son.
Earlier that same day, Trump told reporters he had a “great conversation” with Zelensky, and accused both Bidens of corruption.
Trump, Sept. 22: The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption — all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine.
So, what is Trump talking about?
In January 2018, Biden disclosed that during a trip to Kyiv he privately warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, and then-prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to deal with corruption and remove Shokin as its prosecutor general. (Biden did not say when he made the threat, but he addressed the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv on Dec. 9, 2015, and dangled the prospect of future U.S. aid if the country rid itself of the “cancer of corruption.” )
“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden recalled in remarks at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.
In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.
Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”
In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”
In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.
“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.
Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the “Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go” was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”
At the time, however, news organizations were also reporting that Biden’s anti-corruption message in Kyiv was being undermined by an appearance of a conflict of interest.
In May 2014, Hunter Biden became a board member for the Burisma Group, one of the biggest private gas companies in Ukraine. In a June 2014 article, the Associated Press called Biden’s hiring “politically awkward.”
“Hunter Biden’s employment means he will be working as a director and top lawyer for a Ukrainian energy company during the period when his father and others in the Obama administration attempt to influence the policies of Ukraine’s new government, especially on energy issues,” the AP wrote.
In December 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran Burisma, was under investigation by Ukrainian and British authorities for “alleged criminal wrongdoing,” and it quoted anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine who were concerned that Zlochevsky would be protected from prosecution because of Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma.
“If an investigator sees the son of the vice president of the United States is part of the management of a company … that investigator will be uncomfortable pushing the case forward,” Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, or AntAC, told the Wall Street Journal.
However, there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.
In May, Lutsenko, then-Ukraine’s prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”
Lutsenko told Bloomberg that the prosecutor general’s office in 2014 — before Shokin took office — opened a corruption investigation against Zlochevsky and numerous others. He said the probe’s focus was Serghi Kurchenko, who owned a number of gas companies, and a transaction that occurred in November 2013, months before Biden joined Burisma.
Bloomberg News, May 16: As part of the 5-year-old inquiry, the prosecutor general’s office has been looking at whether Kurchenko’s purchase of an oil storage terminal in southern Ukraine from Zlochevksy in November 2013 helped Kurchenko launder money. Lutsenko said the transaction under scrutiny came months before Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board.
“Biden was definitely not involved,” Lutsenko said. “We do not have any grounds to think that there was any wrongdoing starting from 2014.”
On Jan. 13, 2017, Burisma announced that “all legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations against its President Mykola Zlochevsky and operating companies of Burisma Group have been closed.” Hunter Biden told the New York Times that he left Burisma’s board earlier this year when his term expired.
On “Fox News Sunday,” host John Roberts challenged Giuliani, Trump’s private attorney, on the facts of the case in a Sept. 22 interview. Roberts noted that “other countries in the West were saying [Shokin] needs to go as well,” not just Joe Biden. Giuliani responded, “What does it matter, if the — if the son is under investigation? He didn’t disclose that.”
But there was no evidence at the time that Hunter Biden was under investigation, and there still isn’t.
Correction, Sept. 26: An earlier version of this story said that Biden’s threat to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine occurred in March 2016. We could not verify the date when Biden issued his ultimatum, except to say it occurred prior to the prosecutor’s removal. We have updated to reflect that change.
The impeachment proved nothing illegal happened. Since nobody is above the law, and nobody not even a former VP running for President can claim to be above being investigated when a prosecutor of a foreign country is demanded to be fired before aid will be given, interfering in the internal matters of an ally, an investigation into Biden was warrented.
You're repeating your lies again. Plus you try to confuse the issues by adding Obama
So yeah, nothing happened except you got your panties in a bunch over political gamesmanship.
The national security of the US was never in jeopardy, the ally was never in jeopardy because they already had the deterrent in their arsenal, a deterrent that the Obama administration failed to give which probably cost the lives of thousands of Ukrainians before Russia was deterred when Trump sent Ukraine Javelin missiles. No harm, no foul but Democrats were bound and determined to impeach this President from the day, hell, the day before he took office and raised their hands when asked, about 60 of them as I recall, telling us everything we needed to know as to what Trump could look forward to.
Another asshole lie by you.
"Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest of the corrupt Democrats made a promise to their crazy left-wing base that they would impeach me even BEFORE I took office."
No evidence for Trump's claim that Pelosi, Schiff promised to impeach him before he took office
Notice the common thread in your stories is the lack of links.
You misrepresent, put out debunked trump talking points, and lie your ass off.
And you know it.
Impeachment on a pure party line vote with one notable exception, the one guy Trump dis-respected and he couldn't get over it, Romney, different than the impeachment of Bill Clinton which was a non partisan vote.
Clinton was impeached and what happened, he remained and was referred to as the "elder statesman" of the Democrat party, an impeached President. So it meant nothing to Democrats and the impeachment of Trump meant nothing to Republicans.
I fail to see any difference.
You claim you'll accept voting against a candidate is okay as long as a person can justify his reasoning to you, a douche-bag who won't accept impeachment as a reason for voting against a person.
You are a trumptard liar. Unfit to judge someone's vote reason as trump is to be president.
They considered the evidence as did I. We saw a transcript of the phone call. What was illegal? And did it reach a level of an impeachable offense? No it did not. Add to that the FACT that 60 House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump the day he took office. What does that tell you? That number was up to 100 I believe before the Ukraine call ever happened.
This was a partisan witch hunt. Even Nancy Pelosi broke her own words when she said the House shouldn't move forward without a bi-partisan support and what was the final vote? Not a single Republican voted Yes and two Democrats voted no. There was the bi-partisan vote against impeachment.
Typical trumptard lie. I haven't mentioned where I went to school. Why would I? You would claim I lied.
Obe's lack of education (or failure to use what education he has) is shown by his posts. A lot like your inability to use use critical thoughts to reply to a post.
I just point out obe is tells lie after lie. He puts up no proof any of his wild claims are true.
Obe has never mapped out his definition to what elites are. Think of him saying elite like the other cocksucking "ll" without the quotes.
I have my own idea what an "elite" is and I neither defend or condem them.
It's good to see you wonk for obe.
You both have an aversion to the truth and to links.
So you've once again proven that even when you have nothing to say, you'll settle for a dick in your mouth.
Now STFU.
PS LM and his 3 degrees live inside your head...for free.
Why would I care how many degrees he has.
How would you know what "elites" talk about? You'd just be lying about that.
And why would I talk to a cocksucker like you, other than to point out what a cocksucking know-nothing you are?
We all know you're a punk. Who wonks for your butt-boys.
You can go now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Awww gee, dickmuncher...
We all know you have serious self-esteem issues, but is it really necessary for you to try and ameliorate them by trash-talking the educational status of your fellow eccie members? Does it make you feel better to defend "elites" (defined as anyone who advanced further at more prestigious institutes of higher learning than you were forced to attend... cough, cough...) and look down on anyone who criticizes them?
Have you considered hanging out with Lucas McCain? That guy has three (count 'em - 3!) Ivy League degrees! If you schmooze him enough, I'll betcha he'd be happy to engage you in dazzling intellectual conversations of the kind "elites" have with each other all the time. You might even begin to feel like you have more in common with them than you do with the rest of us ignorant common folks. And wouldn't that be therapeutic for your battered self-esteem?
Beats hitting the bottle again, dontcha think?
Of course, those "elites" are always right, even when they're wrong.
Of course you fail to see the difference. Your version is pretty far off the mark.
I'll try to help you but you aren't worth much of my time.
You claim you'll accept voting against a candidate is okay as long as a person can justify his reasoning to you, a douche-bag who won't accept impeachment as a reason for voting against a person.
You are a trumptard liar. Unfit to judge someone's vote reason as trump is to be president.
i bet it took yous 15 minutes to paste all that crap into your reply and it only took me 5 seconds to call you an idiot
