He was Impeached

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This seems to be the argument you are making. That Trump made false statements about Ukraine aid and therefore should be impeached. This is the evidence you presented.


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.


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

Here is what the Pentagon said






So you are saying that Trump's "false statement" which amounted to .2% , an easy routine error, an easy mistake to make, he should be impeached? Uh! NO!


But more important to me than the things Trump says, is the question, did the President have the authority to do that, hold up aid because if he didn't, that could be a problem although a problem once brought to his attention or proved in court and corrected, still would not amount to an impeachable offense, unless of course you just wanted him impeached for anything because you just wanted him gone and the law, the Constitution, really doesn't matter to you.


Then you present this


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.

First, if nobody is above the law, including a former VP running for President, how can he be beyond investigation when corruption in Ukraine was a major issue, an ongoing issue related to aid? And his son was working for the biggest most corrupt company in Ukraine. To ignore this would be a dereliction of duty for a President. Biden doesn't get a pass just because he is running for President any more than a current President gets a pass as the SC just said. Nobody is above the law.


Your next piece of evidence for impeachment.


Trump, Jan. 22: Now, here’s the other thing: They [Ukraine] got their money long before schedule. They got all their money.


And Ukraine did not receive its aid from the U.S. “long before schedule.”


So again, that "false statement", is enough to impeach a President? Are we now going to say a "false statement" by a President is a High crime or Misdemeanor? Any false statement including one with such little significance since the money was released? No, don't think so. Just how many "false statement" did Obama make? Want to check out the "truth o meter" on Politifact as to the number of false statements made by Obama? Naw, didn't think so.


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.


Wow, so Ukraine not getting 35 million dollars is worth impeaching a President? Good fucking grief man.


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



Now here is the crux of the matter. Did Trump violate federal law





Then you say.


The allegations were made by trump with no evidence any improprieties had occurred. trump directly requested the investigation.


Excuse me while I ROTFL! Unproven allegations were made against Trump in the Russia fiasco but that didn't stop an investigation and to be fair, how do you find evidence without an investigation? Isn't that the excuse Democrats gave? How can we prove these allegations against Trump if we don't investigate they said? What is good for one, is good for bother or neither.


Next subject.



The question of is quid pro quo illegal has been answered many times. Yes, it is illegal.


What is "either fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" if not a quid pro quo? Even Democrats admit that yes it was a quid pro quo but it was "legal" because Biden had the authority of the President to make it! So yes quid pro quo' are made all the time between the government of the United States and other countries. The whole damn aid package to Ukraine was based on the condition that if you don't prove to us that you have corruption under control, you will not get the aid! Come on man! Some quid pro quos are legal, some are not. Democrats argue that Biden's was of the legal kind, Republicans argue as do I that Trump's was legal. If Biden's was legal because it was backed by a President, why wouldn't Trump's quid pro quo be legal? So you got this answer completely wrong and you don't even understand that the Democrats were making the exact opposite case you are making concerning Biden.



And once again you lie about Biden. It is a lie by you because it has been debunked many times.


That Biden said "fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" has been debunked? Really? The video is on Youtube if you care to go look at it.



Here is your statement




The part in bold is absolutely true. The argument comes into play over whether he was fired over prosecuting Biden's son. The fact that Biden demanded the prosecutor be fired is not in dispute. What I can't figure out is, are you to dumb to understand this or do you understand it but you can't admit it.


It is a legitimate argument as to whether the firing can be tied to any prosecution of Hunter.


Let's continue.





See those words in bold type? "At least for now we don't see any wrong doing". Isn't that what an investigation is for? When Republicans said "we don't see any wrong doing in the matter of a Trump Russia conspiracy, did that end the matter or was an investigation called for with no evidence. As a matter of fact, we just found out yesterday from another memo by Peter Strzok, the lead investigator into the Trump Russia connection, that on Feb. 14 2017, Peter Strzok told his boss James Comey, that no connection between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence was found. The same day as it so happens that the headline in the New York Times reported that there were repeated contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence but that didn't stop the investigation did it.


Or how about this line from your post.
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][I]


Now this has been debunked because we have all read the transcript of the conversation. "About 8 times". You mean there weren't sure? They couldn't count them? Please.


Now just to put a period on to what I said above as to whether Biden threatened to







That is a quid pro quo regardless of the reason. If you demand something for something in return, that is a quid pro quo and Democrats argue that in Biden's case, it was legal. You just argued that it was illegal. One of many things you have gotten wrong.



More proof of Biden's quid pro quo from your post. Thanks for including it and contradicting your own words which is pretty funny.





So if a VP can warn the Ukrainian President that if he doesn't deal with what the VP sees as corruption, he won't get aid but some how a sitting President can not tell the Ukrainian President, excuse me ASK the Ukrainian President to investigate possible corruption, that he won't get aid? Good fucking grief. That's some fucking Alice in Wonderland shit right there.


[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][B]


AH! The other excuse why Biden's quid pro quo WAS legal, because a bunch more people agreed with it. Funny how that works huh?


I particularly liked this line of yours.


Plus you try to confuse the issues by adding Obama


Ah! Yes, proving Obama did the same exact thing or similar thing, would be according to you, confusing the issue like when Obama pardoned a General for lying to the FBI but when Trump wants to pardon Flynn for lying to the FBI "that's impeachable". The hypocrisy is staggering.


I wrote



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.


You said


Another asshole lie by you.


Not sure which part you think is a lie. That Obama didn't supply Javelin missiles and thousands of Ukrainian's died, about 14 thousand if I remember correctly or that about 60 House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump the day he took office.


Shit I have to close this out, business to take of. I'll try and get back to some of the stuff I didn't follow through on proving.

Hey munchy, time for you to run along in search of some vasoline! Your rectum is bleeding!

[oeb11]

HF - thank you for detailed evaluation of the DPST propaganda Blue Meanie tried to pass off.

Blue(mm) is beyond help or reason in debate - and refuses Facts in favor of XiNN propaganda and Schiff/Nadler/Pelosi /DPST Lies and flagrant partisan mis-management of the Impeachment process.



In many way - You preach to the choir of Conservatives
And to the intellectually Lost DPST adherents and acolytes.

[rexdutchman]

"You Can't Fix stupid " Ron White Its like the X-files I wanta believe

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

The choice in 2016 was actually pretty simple:
Hillary if you wanted to maintain the status quo of political corruption and back room money laundering between the elite class
vs.
Trump if you wanted none of the above

Trump versus corrupt politicians as explained by the late:
============================== ======
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (on Donald Trump)

To my friends "of a different persuasion" I'm not trying to sell anything or anyone but I do feel this is an interesting take on our very controversial president who I truly believe is not Republican or Democrat.

Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative. I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.

Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:

1. he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
2. they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
3. he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
4. he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
5. he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).

Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all. He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.

============================== ======

The choice in 2020 is:
Joe "Hiden" Biden, a political hack of some 49+ years, if you want to revert back to the status quo of political corruption and back room money laundering between the elite class and their filthy dealings with the CCP and socialism with free shit for somebody else, paid for by the rest of us.
vs.
Trump if you do not

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The choice in 2016 was actually pretty simple:
Hillary if you wanted to maintain the status quo of political corruption and back room money laundering between the elite class
vs.
Trump if you wanted none of the above

Trump versus corrupt politicians as explained by the late:
============================== ======
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (on Donald Trump)

To my friends "of a different persuasion" I'm not trying to sell anything or anyone but I do feel this is an interesting take on our very controversial president who I truly believe is not Republican or Democrat.

Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative. I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.

Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:

1. he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
2. they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
3. he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
4. he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
5. he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).

Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all. He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.

============================== ======

The choice in 2020 is:
Joe "Hiden" Biden, a political hack of some 49+ years, if you want to revert back to the status quo of political corruption and back room money laundering between the elite class and their filthy dealings with the CCP and socialism with free shit for somebody else, paid for by the rest of us.
vs.
Trump if you do not

My man Charles Krauthammer. What a country we would have with leaders that understand what Krauthammer did but that will never be. We have witnessed what happens to a pragmatist. He gets set up by the FBI and CIA. The MSM lie to the point of making themselves look stupid like the Rachel Madcows of media.


No, a pragmatist doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding in the new Socialist America.

[HedonistForever]

I have to apologize for my lengthy post in reply to Munchie's assertions that I lied in my responses. A couple of times instead of providing a response, one that might require I do a little research to prove my point, I skipped it and continued thinking I would get back to it but never did because I had to close out the post quickly when something came up that needed my immediate attention.


There were a couple of things like that but one in particular I want to get back to because it is one of two things at the heart of this issue. That the President violated the law by holding up the funds and that he tried to illegally pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. I think I covered the latter adequately but I wanted to address the former in more detail because I just passed over it.

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

Now here is the crux of the matter. Did Trump violate federal law

And I left it blank. Yes the GAO says that Trump broke the law. Trump's lawyers and the Director of the OMB says he didn't but guess whose opinion the Democrats went with?


I looked on line for the rebuttal argument and this is about as close as I could get. I'll give my own and you can decide if it makes sense or not.

https://www.axios.com/gao-decision-o...5a88282ee.html


The only recourse the GAO has for a violation of the ICA is to sue the administration to release the funds, per Roll Call. In this case, the withheld aid was already released in September.



The other side: Rachel Semmel, the OMB's communications director, said in a statement, "We disagree with GAO's opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law."


So we have two government agencies that disagree with each other. Now read that first one again.

The only recourse the GAO has for a violation of the ICA is to sue the administration to release the funds

But the Democrats had a different recourse in mind, impeachment. Now surely you've heard over the last almost 4 years, many different agencies suing the President in court because their idea of what the law says and the Presidents, disagree. Who decides? Well, the courts do. But here as far as the Democrats were concerned, this was cut and dry. The GAO says that the President broke the law so we don't need no stinkin' court ruling, we're going to impeach the President and this will be part of his impeachment, that he broke this law.


Sorry Democrats but it doesn't work that way or at least shouldn't. The GAO is not a legal body, part of the Judiciary which decides what laws are broken or not broken, not the GAO. Unless and until a court decides the President broke the law, there is no controlling decision on this matter but of course legal matters don't matter when there is a political opponent to impeach.


No court ever said the President broke the law in this matter, therefore it is incorrect to say that he did. Like a couple of other matters, the Democrats just couldn't wait for legal decisions, they were running out of time so THEY decided to subvert the rule of law and rush to judgement.


But then how can we expect people like Munchie to understand these legal niceties when they just have to get rid of this President by any means possible and by golly Republicans should just go along and not have all these high faluntin' ideas about how legal matters are decided.


Well, Republicans did have ideas about such matters and saw that impeachment was not a reasonable way to resolve these matters. First there is a court to go through, a decision whether this amounts to an illegal action and whether a President is willing to accept the decision and resolve the issue which he did. The funds were released before a court could ever consider the matter.


As PolitiFact like to say "my ruling"


No decision was made by the courts whether the President broke the law or not so one can not say that the President broke the law just because of an opinion by an agency with no authority to make such a decision. An opinion yes, decision no.


Let's hear the argument against that.

[oeb11]

HF - well witten
Problem - the radical DPST's impeached Trump not for a 'crime' - but for winning the 2016 election.

That supercedes any other conduct - and they rushed to judgment in their little 'Long march' carrying Pelosi's Impeachment papers like little geese in a gaggle - a corrupt, lying, vindictive gaggle who manipulated the Impeachment Process in the house shamefully.



Tides turn - Pelosi won't be speaker forever - perhaps not after next election when AOC and DPST radicals decide to get rid of her.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I have to apologize for my lengthy post in reply to Munchie's assertions that I lied in my responses. A couple of times instead of providing a response, one that might require I do a little research to prove my point, I skipped it and continued thinking I would get back to it but never did because I had to close out the post quickly when something came up that needed my immediate attention.


There were a couple of things like that but one in particular I want to get back to because it is one of two things at the heart of this issue. That the President violated the law by holding up the funds and that he tried to illegally pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. I think I covered the latter adequately but I wanted to address the former in more detail because I just passed over it.




And I left it blank. Yes the GAO says that Trump broke the law. Trump's lawyers and the Director of the OMB says he didn't but guess whose opinion the Democrats went with?


I looked on line for the rebuttal argument and this is about as close as I could get. I'll give my own and you can decide if it makes sense or not.

https://www.axios.com/gao-decision-o...5a88282ee.html


The only recourse the GAO has for a violation of the ICA is to sue the administration to release the funds, per Roll Call. In this case, the withheld aid was already released in September.



The other side: Rachel Semmel, the OMB's communications director, said in a statement, "We disagree with GAO's opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law."


So we have two government agencies that disagree with each other. Now read that first one again.



But the Democrats had a different recourse in mind, impeachment. Now surely you've heard over the last almost 4 years, many different agencies suing the President in court because their idea of what the law says and the Presidents, disagree. Who decides? Well, the courts do. But here as far as the Democrats were concerned, this was cut and dry. The GAO says that the President broke the law so we don't need no stinkin' court ruling, we're going to impeach the President and this will be part of his impeachment, that he broke this law.


Sorry Democrats but it doesn't work that way or at least shouldn't. The GAO is not a legal body, part of the Judiciary which decides what laws are broken or not broken, not the GAO. Unless and until a court decides the President broke the law, there is no controlling decision on this matter but of course legal matters don't matter when there is a political opponent to impeach.


No court ever said the President broke the law in this matter, therefore it is incorrect to say that he did. Like a couple of other matters, the Democrats just couldn't wait for legal decisions, they were running out of time so THEY decided to subvert the rule of law and rush to judgement.


But then how can we expect people like Munchie to understand these legal niceties when they just have to get rid of this President by any means possible and by golly Republicans should just go along and not have all these high faluntin' ideas about how legal matters are decided.


Well, Republicans did have ideas about such matters and saw that impeachment was not a reasonable way to resolve these matters. First there is a court to go through, a decision whether this amounts to an illegal action and whether a President is willing to accept the decision and resolve the issue which he did. The funds were released before a court could ever consider the matter.


As PolitiFact like to say "my ruling"


No decision was made by the courts whether the President broke the law or not so one can not say that the President broke the law just because of an opinion by an agency with no authority to make such a decision. An opinion yes, decision no.


Let's hear the argument against that.

so Trump was illegally impeached. imagine that.

[oeb11]

Considering the way the DPST's shamelessly manipulated the House committee Impeachment hearings
lying shamelessly - it is appropriate to describe the Trump Impeachment as Illegal.

[HedonistForever]

So just a quick review, since Munchie's head is probably spinning.


Making False statements can not be an impeachable offense or every President could be impeached.


Withholding aid to Ukraine was never proven in a court of law to be an illegal act. The GAO does not "decide", it gives an opinion which is then decided by a court. In this case that was not necessary because the aid was released. Well, maybe .2% wasn't.


You usually don't have evidence until after an investigation. To dispute that would put the whole Mueller fiasco on trial. Biden presented a quid pro quo. You say any quid pro quo is illegal, Democrats say Biden's was perfectly legal. My opinion is if Biden's was legal, so was Trump's. Trump as President was told by his legal advisers that he could withhold aid to Ukraine until HE was convinced corruption was under control not the Pentagon, not Congress but the President.


The President never gave the President of Ukraine an ultimatum in that phone call. Democrats say he understood it to be an ultimatum. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the President of Ukraine says he did not hear it as an ultimatum. The Democrats say of course he would say that he has to. So we are giving aid to a President willing to lie to Congress? Maybe that is when Democrats should have re-thought about aid.


The national security of the US was never in danger. What a preposterous notion. If Ukraine falls, we fall? The security of Ukraine was not in jeopardy and we know that because Russia made no move while the aid was held up and this was future aid. The previous aid package was in effect and the money never stopped completely.



For about 2 years the war in Ukraine raged under Obama. Thousands of Ukrainians died because they did not have lethal defensive weapons. Obama's excuse was that if we gave Ukraine Javelin tank killer missiles and they used them, Russia would annihilate them. Trump said fuck that, give them the missiles perhaps saving thousands of lives that Obama never did.



That's it in a nutshell

[HedonistForever]

If Munchie's rule on false statements being an impeachable offense when Obama was President, he could have been impeached at least 71 times according to PolitiFact


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama




And 60 more "mostly false statements"


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If Munchie's rule on false statements being an impeachable offense when Obama was President, he could have been impeached at least 71 times according to PolitiFact


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama




And 60 more "mostly false statements"


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama

so who do you think muchy will call a liar? you, politfact or both?


BAHHAAAAA

[oeb11]

AnyOne he disagrees with.

AnyOne not Blue!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so who do you think muchy will call a liar? you, politfact or both?


BAHHAAAAA

I'm guessing he will call me a liar for mis-quoting him. "I never said President's should be impeached for making false statements", he'll say. Ah! But YES, you did! He'll figure out some way to look even more dumb than he did thinking he had actually posted evidence for impeachment. Another example of what TDS will do to the brain.

[HedonistForever]

One more thing he will likely do is castigate me for bringing Obama into the conversation as being "irrelevant".


Pointing out hypocrisy is never irrelevant to the conversation.