List of Trump's crimes?

[Mountain Man]

This is priceless, and the Democrats are currently proving this to be true.

While impeachment is technically a political process, our Founding Fathers never intended for it to be wielded as a political weapon.

[Cow Poke]

While impeachment is technically a political process, our Founding Fathers never intended for it to be wielded as a political weapon.

You might enjoy Turley's review of the impeachment circus where they had the three liberal hacks pushing hard for impeachment, under the guise of being there as constitutional experts.

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment

[oxmixmudd]

Teal is aware of this narrative because I responded to your post about it in another thread, and she amen'd my post. Here is my previous response:

yes I saw that response ... and that response is very, very lame.

The knew about it from a cable they received. Nothing in the article identifies the source of the cable. Who they heard it from is irrelevant because ...

It sheds significant light on the false narrative that "Zelinsky said he felt no pressure, therefore there was no QPQ" - light that shows the situation was pretty much as I described it. They had to say that, it was the only way to walk the line between not angering Trump and not involving themselves in the US impeachment. They were, in fact, under a great deal of pressure - they needed those funds and the only thing they knew that might help get it would be to appease Trump with a public announcement about investigating Biden's son and Burisma.

[whag]

While impeachment is technically a political process, our Founding Fathers never intended for it to be wielded as a political weapon.

What about foreign-led investigations into political rivals? Do you think they intended for presidents to use those as leverage?

[Mountain Man]

yes I saw that response ... and that response is very, very lame.

The knew about it from a cable they received. Nothing in the article identifies the source of the cable. Who they heard it from is irrelevant because ...

It sheds significant light on the false narrative that "Zelinsky said he felt no pressure, therefore there was no QPQ" - light that shows the situation was pretty much as I described it. They had to say that, it was the only way to walk the line between not angering Trump and not involving themselves in the US impeachment. They were, in fact, under a great deal of pressure - they needed those funds and the only thing they knew that might help get it would be to appease Trump with a public announcement about investigating Biden's son and Burisma.

This is nothing but idle speculation. You're assuming motives and thought processes for which there is no evidence. The phone call between Trump and Zelensky was on July 25th. The military aide was released on September 11. That's nearly two-months during which time Ukraine never agreed to start investigations and never publicly announced any investigations, yet we're supposed to believe that Trump had Zelensky shaking in his boots and willing to do anything to appease the Orange Mob Boss. In other words, you're asking us to believe that Zelensky is willing to lie to stay on Trump's good side, but wouldn't announce that they were looking into Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal. How do you reconcile this gaping hole in your narrative?

[JimL]

There's no way to benefit, personal or otherwise, by doing something to directly influence the actions of another without the other in some way knowing about it. Ukraine didn't know the aid was withheld so it could not have had any bearing on their actions had they complied with the request, which they didn't. The presumption itself is logically incoherent and shouldn't be held at all without substantiation.

Ukraine did know about the hold on the military aid so stop echoing the right wing propaganda that "they didn't even know." Even if no one told them, they still knew, they knew it was appropriated and they weren't getting it. They can put two and two together. But they didn't need to speculate, they already knew long before the call to Zelensky, they knew in August. And the only reason that they, i.e. Ukraine, didn't comply with the demand was because the whistle was blown, the plot was uncovered, so the scheduled public announcement was cancelled.

[Sparko]

What about foreign-led investigations into political rivals? Do you think they intended for presidents to use those as leverage?

You mean like Hillary and Obama and all the other democrats did to Trump for the last four years?
**cough** Steele Dossier - FISA **cough**

[JimL]

You mean like Hillary and Obama and all the other democrats did to Trump for the last four years?
**cough** Steele Dossier - FISA **cough**

No epiphany eh! Welcome back anyway, Sparko. Hope you're doing well.

[Sparko]

No epiphany eh! Welcome back anyway, Sparko. Hope you're doing well.

Thanks Jim, I appreciate your well wishes. I am back to my old grumpy pirate self again.

[Mountain Man]

I am back to my old grumpy pirate self again.

Sorry to hear the brain transplant didn't take.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry to hear the brain transplant didn't take.

They were lucky to find a heart!

[whag]

You mean like Hillary and Obama and all the other democrats did to Trump for the last four years?
**cough** Steele Dossier - FISA **cough**

Two wrongs make a right. *cough* Conveniently fluid Christian morality. *cough*

[oxmixmudd]

This is nothing but idle speculation. You're assuming motives and thought processes for which there is no evidence. The phone call between Trump and Zelensky was on July 25th. The military aide was released on September 11. That's nearly two-months during which time Ukraine never agreed to start investigations and never publicly announced any investigations, yet we're supposed to believe that Trump had Zelensky shaking in his boots and willing to do anything to appease the Orange Mob Boss. In other words, you're asking us to believe that Zelensky is willing to lie to stay on Trump's good side, but wouldn't announce that they were looking into Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal. How do you reconcile this gaping hole in your narrative?

no - it's not 'idle speculation' ... but you saying that does appear to make clear you did not read the article itself.

[oxmixmudd]

no - it's not 'idle speculation' ... but you saying that does appear to make clear you did not read the article itself.

here is one tasty morsel from it:

Source: nyt

Ms. Zerkal’s account demonstrates just how hard, bordering on impossible, it is for Mr. Zelensky to avoid taking sides in the impeachment inquiry. If he is misleading people about his knowledge of the aid freeze, then he is damaging the Democrats’ case against Mr. Trump. If he admits knowing, he damages Mr. Trump’s case.

The Zelensky administration, Ms. Zerkal said, is most concerned about placating Mr. Trump, having decided that the impeachment inquiry will fail in the Senate and that Mr. Trump could be re-elected.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Two wrongs make a right. *cough* Conveniently fluid Christian morality. *cough*

Or maybe, the Democrats made up false information to try to take down Trump, and Trump was actually trying to investigate a crime that Biden admitted to on camera that they are now trying to accuse Trump of!