Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drcube said:
Mulvaney admitted the quid pro quo already
Click to expand...
Mulvaney actually didn’t.

What he did say is that the corruption in Ukraine dating back to 2016 was among the reasons the money was delayed. 2016 was the year in which the fake “Dossier” was generated by Ukrainian and Russian sources. Some sources also believed the DNC was hacked from Ukraine, whether by Russians or others. Since the DNC never allowed the FBI to examine its server to independently verify the source of the hack, nobody but the DNC knows to this very day where the hack came from.

Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a “corrupt place” and that he didn’t want to “send them a bunch of money.” He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren’t doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine’s defense.

Mulvaney added: “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.” He added: “the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation.”

Mulvaney was certainly not talking about a “quid pro quo” personal to Trump or Biden and not related to anything happening in 2019.
 
He just made an incredible presentation. He has no equal in Congress or the Senate.
 
Various Republicans also wanted the Bidens to testify. That’s definitely relevant because if they committed a crime that bears very heavily on the impeachment. Just because Dems don’t want Bidens investigated doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be.

Schiff would be relevant as to the reasons for the House NOT subpoenaeing any of the witnesses they now claim are so vital. Also, to see with the fake whistleblower and Schiff whether that whole business, which gave rise to the impeachment, was a conspiracy concocted by Schiff the fake whistleblower and perhaps others.
OneSheep said:
The other 30% must be completely unfamiliar with the nature of a trial, or are convinced that this president, for various reasons, can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
This contemptuous attitude on the part of liberals is a good part of the reason Trump was elected.
OneSheep said:
The house does not remove the president from office once he is impeached. The Senate has to do that.
Click to expand...
Properly speaking, the House impeaches, which is gathering the evidence it believes should support a guilty finding in the Senate. The Senate is effectively the “jury” which weighs the evidence obtained by the House and decides on removal. What the Dems are doing here is demanding that the Senate take over a House function and re-investigate for purposes of an impeachment they know they haven’t proved and (in the case of Bolton and Mulvaney) didn’t want to bother even investigating.
 
The mountain of evidence Schiff just layed out of course. An incredible and devestating presentation
 
Ridgerunner said:
Mulvaney actually didn’t.

What he did say is that the corruption in Ukraine dating back to 2016 was among the reasons the money was delayed. 2016 was the year in which the fake “Dossier” was generated by Ukrainian and Russian sources. Some sources also believed the DNC was hacked from Ukraine, whether by Russians or others. Since the DNC never allowed the FBI to examine its server to independently verify the source of the hack, nobody but the DNC knows to this very day where the hack came from.

Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a “corrupt place” and that he didn’t want to “send them a bunch of money.” He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren’t doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine’s defense.

Mulvaney added: “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.” He added: “the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation.”

Mulvaney was certainly not talking about a “quid pro quo” personal to Trump or Biden and not related to anything happening in 2019.
Click to expand...
So, the money was held back so that the Ukraine would investigate Trump’s political enemies. Like I said, he admitted it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
This contemptuous attitude on the part of liberals is a good part of the reason Trump was elected.
Click to expand...
Please provide another reason why people would not want a legitimate trial to examine all relevant evidence other than that they must be completely unfamiliar with the nature of a trial, or are convinced that this president, for various reasons, can do no wrong.
Ridgerunner said:
Various Republicans also wanted the Bidens to testify.
Click to expand...
Bidens were not on trial. The problem was not in Trump wanting to investigate the Bidens, the problem was that the Bidens were his only focus, to the point of money being withheld until an investigation of the Bidens by Ukraine was merely reported as taking place, for the obvious reason of giving bad press to Trump’s political opponent. In addition, the Ambassadorial agenda, which included dealing with corruption in all levels of Ukraine government, was sidelined by the Trump administration except for the case of the Bidens.

Republican congressmen wanted to change the purpose of the investigation to a critique of the Bidens involvement in Ukraine corruption, but that is an obvious red herring and irrelevant. There are other institutions that have the responsibility to deal with Americans involved in foreign corruption, it is not Congress’ role.

I grant that Bidens’ involvement over there is something worth noting, and it was not only noted but at least one witness, who was part of the Obama admin., advised against it.
 
OneSheep said:
Please provide another reason why people would not want a legitimate trial to examine all relevant evidence other than that they must be completely unfamiliar with the nature of a trial, or are convinced that this president, for various reasons, can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
Please explain why the House was so sloppy in their discovery phase,
why did they vote to impeach without gathering the evidence?
 
Theo520 said:
Please explain why the House was so sloppy in their discovery phase,
why did they vote to impeach without gathering the evidence?
Click to expand...
Theo, there was enough circumstantial evidence to vote for Article 1, and the stonewalling and lack of cooperation was rolled into Article 2.

However, if you are going to remove the President, all of the evidence should be seen/heard. Mulvaney should explain what he did with OMB and why, just one among many people with evidence.
 
drcube said:
So, the money was held back so that the Ukraine would investigate Trump’s political enemies. Like I said, he admitted it.
Click to expand...
Mulvaney didn’t say that and neither did I. Joe Biden was not a candidate in 2016, which is the time period Mulvaney was talking about. 2016 was, however, the year in which the “Dossier” emanated from Ukraine, apparently using Russian sourcing. Trump underwent three years of pointless investigation because of that phony document and the still-secret source of the DNC hack and he’s not supposed to care about investigating it?

But even if his sole purpose was to investigate Biden; a proposition belied both by Mulvaney and the telephone conversation itself, he had not only a right to do it, but a duty to do it. When the Vice President of the U.S. brags on nationwide TV about thwarting an investigation into his son’s employer by getting the duly appointed prosecutor fired, it begs for investigation. Had that been a Republican vice president, he would have been impeached the moment anyone knew of it.
 
PaulinVA said:
However, if you are going to remove the President, all of the evidence should be seen/heard. Mulvaney should explain what he did with OMB and why, just one among many people with evidence.
Click to expand...
Mulvaney may yet testify in the Senate, although that would be the Senate taking up the House’s role. But if he testifies and completely clears Trump, liberals will just call him a liar and spend the next six months trying to prove him a liar, citing alleged incidents from grade school on.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Mulvaney didn’t say that and neither did I. Joe Biden was not a candidate in 2016, which is the time period Mulvaney was talking about. 2016 was, however, the year in which the “Dossier” emanated from Ukraine, apparently using Russian sourcing. Trump underwent three years of pointless investigation because of that phony document and the still-secret source of the DNC hack and he’s not supposed to care about investigating it?
Click to expand...
So, the money was held back to get Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political enemies because they caused him to be investigated. An investigation that resulted in a whole bunch of convictions. Pretty much what I said.
Ridgerunner said:
But even if his sole purpose was to investigate Biden; a proposition belied both by Mulvaney and the telephone conversation itself, he had not only a right to do it, but a duty to do it. When the Vice President of the U.S. brags on nationwide TV about thwarting an investigation into his son’s employer by getting the duly appointed prosecutor fired, it begs for investigation. Had that been a Republican vice president, he would have been impeached the moment anyone knew of it.
Click to expand...
He didn’t brag about “thwarting an investigation into his son’s employer.” . . .
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
OneSheep:
Please provide another reason why people would not want a legitimate trial to examine all relevant evidence other than that they must be completely unfamiliar with the nature of a trial, or are convinced that this president, for various reasons, can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
Please explain why the House was so sloppy in their discovery phase,
why did they vote to impeach without gathering the evidence?
Click to expand...
They gathered all the evidence they could. Obviously, they could have gone to court when subpoenas were rejected by Trump, but then it would be in the courts for months while Trump could continue doing more of the same.

I see that they had enough evidence to impeach, but more evidence from internal messages of the NSA, State dept, and concerns submitted to the Judiciary by ambassadors would have helped confirm what has been found.

So, now, do you have an answer to my question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top