Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
Trump was looking for dirt. What is the relevancy?
Click to expand...
Trump was looking for an investigation into corruption where there was more than ample evidence of it. Hillary was looking for dirt. The Obama Administration was looking for dirty in 2016. Difference.
 
Last edited:
Hillary? This is a trial and not a campaign oops investigation to find dirt.
What ample evidence is there. I guess if they show it at trial we can see. But right now overpaying a 50 year old son does not warrant an investigation.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Hillary? This is a trial and not a campaign oops investigation to find dirt.
Click to expand...
Yes Hillary and also the Obama administration. How much time has our gov’t invested investigating Trump on flimsy evidence and lawless warrants? Yet. Trump wants one valid investigation against Burisma and Biden, a Democrat, and all h*ll breaks lose with the Democrats. And he gets impeached for that, it’s insane. He has been harassed with these investigations since came down the elevator. They didn’t want him to run nor win, and didn’t expect him to win.
Maximus1 said:
What ample evidence is there. I guess if they show it at trial we can see. But right now overpaying a 50 year old son does not warrant an investigation.
Click to expand...
There is more than ample evidence that is spelled out already in this thread. Burisma and the owner wasn’t being investigated for just sh*ts and giggles, nor was Ukraine looking to question Hunter Biden for the fun of it either. Let’s not forget how the Democrats witness Vindman describe Burisma “Corrupt entity”
 
Yes a difference.
For example if Trump with Birther went to an African government office looking for a birth certificate, he can pay market value for it and not violate campaign finance law.
But you cannot accept free dirt for example. Or solicit help . And you cannot hold up 300 million allocated dollars to fight a war to coerce a leader who doesn’t want to get involved.
 
The Burisma oligarch was out of that company two years before Biden was put on the board.
 
Maximus1 said:
Yes a difference.
For example if Trump with Birther went to an African government office looking for a birth certificate, he can pay market value for it and not violate campaign finance law.
But you cannot accept free dirt for example. Or solicit help . And you cannot hold up 300 million allocated dollars to fight a war to coerce a leader who doesn’t want to get involved.
Click to expand...
Oh yes a difference, Trump didn’t use a gov’t entity to defraud the FISA court for numerous warrants to spy on political opponents. Nor did he solicit a foreign entity to draft up slanderous lies about a political opponent. The only ones who solicited help were Hillary and Obama Administration. You seem to not understand the difference between dirt and looking into real corruption. You can delay funds and hold them, happens all the time for many reason. Nothing illegal about it. Who was coerced? Ukraine said they weren’t coerced.
 
Who used a govt entity to go to the FISA court. The last three warrants Sessions was the AG and Trump was president.
 
Maximus1 said:
The Burisma oligarch was out of that company two years before Biden was put on the board.
Click to expand...
No he wasn’t. He stilled controlled the company, he never sold it off. He was out of Ukraine though when he fled when being investigated.
 
There is already a conclusion holding these funds was illegal. Once Bolton testifies, it was a quid pro quo for a private benefit
 
Maximus1 said:
Who used a govt entity to go to the FISA court. The last three warrants Sessions was the AG and Trump was president.
Click to expand...
Sessions was the AG for Obama? That’s news to me. When were the Carter Page warrants executed?
 
So why is a guy who becomes a board member 2 years after , someone who needs to be investigated.
Out of an entire country.
Oh yes. Political opponent.
 
There has been no conclusion holding the funds were illegal. Unless you mean by Democrats and their own conclusion.

You have no idea what Bolton will say.

Guess what quid pro quo is not illegal.

Private gain? Again your belief. Doesn’t make it a fact.
 
The 3 renewals when Trump was president. The first was secret and 2 weeks before the election.
And the warrant subject was no longer part of the Trump campaign in September
 
The independant group concluded it. Thats it. Now holdong violated the statute.
 
Because the Ukraine gov’t believes illicit funds (US taxpayer funds mind you) were directed into his bank account. Get it? Again why did Ukrainian officials want to speak with Hunter Biden?
 
You mean asking for a foreign leader to investigate an American citizen who is a political opponent I not Trump’s pro interest. Out of 1700 companies there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top