Will Trump get impeached?

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Of course they say exactly the opposite; that is how biased media works. You do not need to consume either Fox News or CNN, and can just look at the transcripts of the known statements and make your own judgement.
It is surprising how many people consume a biased media source and, at the same time, criticise the opposite media sources, not seeing the hypocrisy.

As for withholding aid, that just once again demonstrates how outdated the institute of presidency is. That one man can override a will of the entire Congress is truly a sad matter of affairs. However, this is how it works, and Trump is not doing anything that would not be expected from a president.
The way the current system works is, the Congress decides what must be done, and the executive branch led by president decides how and when it is done - "when" being anything from "right now" to "in a hundred years, but realistically never". Trump is simply exploiting the mechanisms that have been already in place for a long time, and he is not the first, nor the last, to do so. Obama was the one who normalised, for example, executive orders, yet I did not see the same complaints about him as I do about Trump.

Once again, this is a purely partisan issue. Neither camp cares about any wrongdoing on the president's part; each of them only cares about getting a favorable political outcome, by any means necessary.

There is no substance to this entire investigation. It is a usual power struggle, and people on both sides thinking that it is somehow about their interest and not about the interest of the involved politicians are kidding themselves.
Politics is almost never about people; it is about power. It is very helpful to keep this in mind; helps one rationally analyse most political events.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Yes i didnt see that one.  I was basing it on voulkers testimony which said they didnt know

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

No I rarely watch fox.  I generally like to watch shapiro...who is no fan of trump, and tim poole who is a liberal.

The difference with your ceo thing is that ukraine didnt pay for anything we are just giving them aid because we believe its in our interest.  Trump can easily make the case he didnt want to give that aid because of corruption concerns.  Its more like being uneasy about paying for an advertisement.

 Zelensky gets to determine whether they do an investigate but we have every right to pressure him to do so.  I dont understand why people would be against investigating corruption before giving the country aid.

Also again joe biden literally did the exact same thing.  Bribed the country when the funds were already approved yet no one on the democratic side is calling for his head.  In this instance though the bribe was actually taken and i think a case can be made that his interests were much more personal than trumps.

sdevarya

@AlofRI

I never said that he should not get impeached, my debate is that he will not. The Senate is Republican dominated so...("_").
Also, no matter what you say, every President has a bad and a good side. "BOT ALERT!"

У него есть сила, и мы должны уважать его. Если у вас есть такая проблема, постарайтесь справиться с президентством лучше, чем он.

Got tricked didn't you! You may call me a Russian bot but the truth is that no one here can handle presidencybetter than him, if YOU CAN why don't you contest? Everyone here is a pigment of humour, each one of us. If  you do believe in the negatives of Trump fulfillingly, then why don't you write an article to a newspaper regarding your views and see if it helps get your perspective across. Also, news manipulation plays a humungous role here. PLEASE READ PROOFREAD ARTICLES! Also, tell me the news agencies you get your information from.
 

Hasta La Vista!

sdevarya

@AlofRI

It is the AMERICAN attitude which gets people to dislike you.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar This is literally the argument I have been making the entire time, we agree here.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers Let's do a little game theory thought experiment here, with circumstances largely as they stand.

To recap what will be relevant to this experiment quickly, the Bidens have potentially been doing some shady things in Ukraine. Trump has been putting pressure on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, and likely was withholding military aid to Ukraine, for now, lets assume this is true regardless of if it is impeachable or not.

Now put yourself in the shoes of President Zelensky. Your options are: Cooperate with Trump do the investigation, do not and get no foreign aid.

Assigning arbitrary values, the matrix is: coop 0, defy -5

The choice is obvious, do the investigation right?

But what about the results of the investigation? If you are the president of Ukraine, you can actually guarantee the best outcome for yourself by intentionally skewing the results!

Consider what would happen if the results of the investigation were to show Biden was not guilty. That information would be invaluable to the Bidens, and President Zelensky could potentially strike a deal with them for future reward.

What if he was guilty? This information is invaluable to Trump, because it could potentially eliminate his primary rival for the 2020 election, maximizing his chances for a second term. But Zelensky gets nothing in this scenario, however if Trump gets a second term anyways, then there may be consequences.

So now the matrix is more complex. The numbers are again arbitrary. guilty & impeach: 0, guilty & 2nd term, 1 innocent & impeach 2, innocent & 2nd term -2.

From President Zelensky's perspective, it may be worth it to take the risk, doing everything in his power to ensure that Trump was impeached so long as it didn't also incriminate himself.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. The bidens werent the only inestigation of corruption trump was looking to investigate.

And lets be honest here a person who is known for buying hookers, sleeping with his brothers widow while married, and driving while intoxicated with crack in his car doesnt exactly have boatd member qualifications.

Also your game scenario doesnt exactly examine all of the outcomes correctly.  Zelensky could do a proper investigation and if it helps trump could gain a better relationship with the u.s. president potentially for 4 more years.  Not bad to have a good relationship with the president of the most powerful country. Also it isnt improper to investigate corruption just because ukraine might be shady about how they conduct it.

Also it has not been concretely proven that trump had a quid pro quo in the first place.  Sundland said trump told him no pro quo, although yes working with Giuliani his understanding was there was.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers I would like to point out that the Bidens aren't on trial here, ( at least not in the US ) so any misdemeanors on their behalf is irrelevant to the conversation.

If you review the numbers I provided, you will see that I did in fact account for improved relationship with Trump in the event of a guilty scenario from the investigation into the Bidens, for which I assigned an arbitrary value of 1.

So why did I assign a value of 1 and not something higher? Based on the assumption that Trump did withhold congressional approved military funds to help their ongoing war against Russia, our longstanding rival, I would find it reasonable that Trump would be unwilling to give anything more than the bare minimum help to Ukraine, because there is no reason for him to care about what does or does not happen to Ukraine. Honestly, I was on the fence about making it a zero, but decided one for the reason you stated.

As of today, 11/21/2019 the testimony from Mr. Holmes suggests that there was a quid pro quo, in his rather humorous opening statement, where the president yells at him through the phone and greet him "President Zelensky Loves your " with clear recollection.

Regardless of how you feel about impeachment proceedings, this is a funny story.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Holmes said he overheard a phone call that was not on speakerphone where the actual person testified that there was no mention of quid pro quo.  Sundland only said he presumed there was one but never heard from a single person that the withholdings were tied to an investigation of the bidens.

Your scenario still doesnt show how it is wrong to try and get another nation to investigate corruption when you are providing them millions in aid.  Just because zelensky may happen to take advantage of the situation doesnt make invalid.

You are also assuming that the U.S. wouldnt put a single person on the investigation to ensure the results arent corrupted.

With regard to trump not ever giving more aid to zelensky, i dont think that is valid.  For one he didnt withhold for a very substantial amount of time.  Also zelensky is a new president i find it worthwhile that trump look into past corruption and zelensky before giving away nearly a billion dollars in tax payer dollars.  The U.S. in recent history doesnt exactly have the greatest track record supplying aid.  Weve been burned by it times.

My point of the bidens is joe did do a quid pro quo but there is more substantial evidence...hes on tape saying it.  Yet democrats see nk need to remove him from the democratic primaries.  Hypocrisy is alive and well.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

1: Before Congress appropriated this financial aid, it had to go through an exhaustive process to be authorized and approved, Ukraine had to demonstrate they were able and willing to fight domestic corruption, bipartisan committees had already cleared them and established they fulfilled the necessary requirements... The under secretary of defense for policy, John C. Rood, provided this certification in a letter to Congress  and stated that “Now that this defense institutional reform has occurred, we will use the authority provided ... to support programs in Ukraine further.”

2 Once Congress designates money for a program, the executive is bound to spend those funds on that program. If the president wants to significantly alter a program’s budget, he is required to obtain congressional approval, which Trump tried to bypass even though he is required by law to do so... 

3: Whether he withhold the aid for a minute or weeks is irrelevant, the aid was already authorized and appropriated... There is such a thing as separation of powers for a reason...

4: Biden did not do a quid pro quo, the demands for firing Shokin (Ukrainian prosecutor) came from a coalition of official American and European services (which Biden was a part of) , the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, it was a concerted action done through official channels... 

Get your facts straight...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Well on tape biden said, i told they wont get there money until they fire the prosecuter and then all of a sudden the prosecuter was gone.

Also not sure if all of what you said is true.  There is a separation of powers and that generally means that the congress and president have to agree before something gets passed.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

For Zelensky, it seems more reasonable to play along with Trump. There are a few factors here at play favoring it:
1. Republicans in general are bigger on foreign aid to the countries opposing traditional strategic opponents of the US, such as Russia, China or Iran. Should the Democrats have their way, chances are Ukraine will receive much less yearly financial aid than it does now.
2. Zelensky wants Ukraine to integrate into the Western international community. Antagonising the current US leader is not the best way to make an impression of a good will, especially given that Trump is almost certain to win the election-2020, so not playing along with his desires right now would set Ukraine up for 4 more years of diplomatic struggles.
3. Zelensky is a very shrewd individual, not shying away from playing dirty games and asking for favors on the backstage. Since Trump has a very similar personality, Zelensky will get along better with him, than with traditional politicians who try to, at least, maintain the image of an honest and open person.

I do not see what Zelensky can possibly gain from supporting the impeachment procedure. If the procedure fails, then Zelensky is looking at 5 years of having virtually no support from the US - support that Ukraine desperately needs right now. If it succeeds and Trump is reelected in 2020, then, again, Ukraine is in trouble. Finally, if it succeeds and Trump loses / is not able to participate in the election-2020, then he will have a much harder time maintaining positive diplomatic relations with whoever is now in charge, and also will be seen as non-trustworthy by the American politicians, seeing how easily he can turn on his yesterday's friends and allies - which is a big deal in international diplomacy.

Realise that Zelensky has a very shaky position in Ukraine, as both the establishment and approximately half of the traditionally leaning population is suspicious of him. He does not need any major controversies right now, especially ones that can jeopardise the Ukraine-US relations. The best course of action for him is to maintain neutrality in the matter as much as possible, and do the investigation that Trump is asking for in a short and inconclusive way.

sdevarya

@Plaffelvohfen
@AlofRI

I assure that Trump will not get impeached, why? Because there has been massive news manipulation across the world. We cannot trust the news.

все радостные новости, шутки

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Here's the reality about this whole affair, summarized in about 10 min... You may not like it, truth can be uncomfortable but it actually should anger you if you actually care for your country and your Constitution more than you may care about any party or single individual...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=squWPyjO83w

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar What Zelensky would do in this case is hedge his bets within the Democratic party, so that no matter what he will get a win next term so long as trump doesn't get reelected. The democrats need Trump to be impeached if they want a chance in the oval office, so if Zelensky makes that offer, they all have more than enough motivation to work with him, to guarantee future aid to Ukraine.

Kind of an abstract political maneuver, however it has it's basis in game theory, in particular using the tit-for-tat strategy, where basically what you do is copy your opponents last move. In this case, since Trump withheld aid to Ukraine the next move would be to not cooperate with Trump. After all, he would have gotten that aid if Trump had not intervened because it was already approved.

As it stands right now the impeachment hearings are over. This would change if someone new stepped forward to testify. At this point, I think it's unlikely that Zelensky will use this strategy just because of the time constraint because it is unlikely that he could find his own whistle blower to testify and give evidence, who would ultimately be working for him.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Democratic presidents do not have a good track record of supporting countries in the Russian sphere of influence, and while George W Bush funded them heavily, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama mostly abandoned them. Why would he roll the dice now, especially given how virtually all Democratic candidates advocate for reduction of military spending, including military assistance to the US allies?

Trump and the Republicans are reliable enough allies. There is no need to suddenly trigger a political crisis in the US sending ripples across the world, with unknown outcome, when everything is going to be fine as it is. Granted, Zelensky would probably prefer to see a "classic" Republican president in place of Trump, someone like Rubio, Kasich or Cruz, but I doubt he would risk the painful alternative just to gain a bit more support.

Ukraine is not a solid Western democracy; it is a very poor, unstable and corrupt country, with a large fraction of the population having strong pro-Russian alignment. These are not circumstances where a Western-leaning president will want to rock the boat in pursuit of phantom gains.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

There are several areas where he is wrong.

1.  Trump isnt getting a foreign power to meddle in our election. He is trying to investigate corruption that happened involving a foreign power.  He is not asking them to lie, only to investigate.  If there is no coruption then biden is fine. Also he never said he wanted the bidens on trial by ukraine.  He just wants the facts on the matter to come out.

2.He says trump got away with russian meddling...false, muller didnt find russian collusion. 

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

1: He certainly does... Asking a foreign power to investigate a private US citizen, it is a betrayal of his oath of office, he named Biden specifically... He swore to uphold the Constitution and he is required by the same to defend ALL american citizen and like it or not he is Biden's President... If Biden is to be investigated, it should be under US law... He doesn't care about the investigation, all he wants is a talking point for his campaign... The GOP very own witness testified about this. 

2: I disagree that the Russians got Trump elected, he very probably would have won anyway (his opponent was the worst possible one), but they certainly meddled in the election that is as plain as day, he asked Russia on live TV to hack the DNC... Which they did... Russia put out the propaganda piece that it was Ukraine, this is a documented fact, Crowdstrike is an american company, who's owner is Russian born american citizen...

You are being lied to by this administration and you swallow the crap by the shovel... Wake up, your Constitution is being pissed on by the GOP!!!

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I dont believe russia did nothing, but at the same token how can you believe everything that guy said as fact when he says things like trump got away with russian meddling then asks for help from ukraine.  They didnt find a link between trump and russia. He had obvious bias.

If it is the job of the president to hold the standards of the constitution, then i believe is in public interest to investigate someone in high public that looks to have done something corrupt.  He should defend people from wrongdoing, its not his dutt to look the other way when a citizen potentially does something corrupt with a foreign power.  

They investigated trump when he was a private citizen by drafting a fake doasier and a falsified fisa warrant, but i guess because it was done in America thats ok.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

If it is the job of the president to hold the standards of the constitution, 

IF?????   You're not sure?????? 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Thats not how that reads.  Context matters.  

You said it was his duty and i responded by saying if it is...then he should do x.

That was a bad attempt at a cheap shot, youre better than that.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

His job would have been to open an investigation himself here in the US, not trying (via unofficial channels) to pressure a foreign power to do so... You're either unbelievably naive, don't give a crap about your founding document or you're placing party before your country...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The  corruption wasnt performed here though, it may he harder for a U.S. investigation to find information.

Again hes not being tried by Ukraine, Ukraine is being asked for the evidence.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Asking a foreign power to investigate a private US citizen not accused of anything by anyone, is betraying his oath of office, you ask your AG to do it officially... Ukraine aid was voted by an overwhelming majority in Congress (only 7 GOP voted against, 66 DEMS voted against) and Trump signed it into law in 2017, this was a bipartisan decision and before it was signed by Trump and appropriated by Congress, Ukraine had the obligation to demonstrate it was willing and able to fight corruption, they were given the green light by Trump's own administration...

He didn't care about Burisma/Hunter Biden back then, because Joe Biden wasn't a candidate... He certainly didn't care at the time of the 25th July call either as witness (GOP ones) testified last week. This all came after Biden announced his bid... 

One must be unbelievably naive, of completely disingenuous to deny those facts...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Or it could be that trump didnt learn about that stuff until then.  What your saying is all democrats should be able to keep trump from investigating them as long as they declare theyre running for president.

At the impeachment testimonies they never even asked what trumps intent was.  They just assumed people would think he did it solely for political gain, which has yet to be proved.  No one has testified that trump ever said he was worried about joe bidens presidency or anything about trying to find dirt to influence the election.

Do you not care about the bidens and bursima?  Seems pretty odd to me.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

What your saying is all democrats should be able to keep trump from investigating them as long as they declare theyre running for president.

That is not remotely close to what I'm saying and you know it... You refuse to acknowledge that Trump attempted to bribe a foreign power into helping him creating a bogus narrative to use in 2020, that is all he wanted, this is obvious to anyone who's not either disingenuous or brainwashed.

He was caught and tried to hide the facts, unlawfully trying to prevent witnesses to testify by ordering them to defy subpoenas... Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, etc should have come in person and plead the 5th if they wanted or be honest and provide the appropriate documents to exonerate them...

And no, I don't care about Hunter Biden and Burisma, I don't see why I should... The only reason Trump wanted this investigation was specific to the Biden name, you know this as well as anyone, if that guy was John Smith with no political value, nothing would have happened and you know it...

Your disingenuousness is indecent considering your founding document is being openly pissed on by this administration... 

TKDB

@대왕광개토

@Plaffelvohfen

If Trump gets Impeached, a fair amount of the Liberals who are leading the charge against  the POTUS, might find themselves losing their jobs, because they, have apparently placed their party over the rest of the country? 

And why have they done this?

Because Hillary Clinton Impeached herself from becoming the POTUS, by her own hands and actions, and they, and she, can't seem to come to terms with that LOSS?

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Damn, learn about your Constitution... If currently elected democrats do lose their seat because they did their job (I assume you mean they won't be reelected, which is highly doubtful) I don't mind because it's (as usual from you) irrelevant anyway and it would be the will of the voters so no big deal... Pretty sure you didn't know that if Trump is impeached and removed, nothing would prevent him from running and being reelected as POTUS according to the Constitution...  Clinton wasn't impeached you dimwit, she wasn't reelected, don't use words you don't understand...

Those demonstrably placing Party over country at the moment are GOP officials and conned Trump supporters such as you... I don't mind a republican president at all, I don't mind republican policies either, but integrity and honesty is something every american deserve from their elected officials, more so with the POTUS (republican or democrat, doesn't matter which)., Trump is neither honest nor upright, he's a conman of the worst kind who's playing you for fools...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I care about corruption wherever it is.  Why do i care about joe biden...because he is not joe schmoe, he was the vice president. Trump can be right in investigating this evem though joe biden is his political rival.

Again the previous admin did it with a falsified fisa and fake dossier...that i find wrong.  Investigating trump on russia with actual evidence is not wrong.

People seem to be agreeing with my sentiment because independents are falling off impeachment fast.

Not many people think biden will even be the nominee

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I fully expect Biden to be the nominee, actually. Not because he is a clean and respectable candidate, but because his Democratic opponents are completely off the rails. I cannot imagine the Democratic camp as a whole uniting behind one of those extremists, and Biden, however controversial, at least still maintains some semblance of the old good Democrats, back when they respected economics some and did not put emotions before common sense.

If it is not Biden, then who? None of those candidates is even remotely appealing to any significant fraction of the population. Sanders, Warren and Harris with their fear-mongering do not have the charisma to gain enough supporters; Buttigieg does not know what he really wants and regularly flips stances; Yang is purely advertising himself and has nothing in terms of even remotely functional policies; Gabbard is the Democratic version of Paul Rand, a contrarian, and has no chance to ever win anything.

Aside from Biden, it seems to me that only Bloomberg has a real chance. He has a much stronger media influence than Trump, he is extraordinarily rich, very-very experienced in politics, and people largely like him, in both parties. Unfortunately, he entered the race a bit too late, and even if he manages to have all the requirement marks checked, there just might not be enough time for his campaign to get any traction.

Bloomberg is actually the only candidate from the current Democratic bunch which I would prefer over Trump. Will see how it goes. I disagree with a lot of his policies, but he seems to share a belief that almost nobody in politics shares nowadays: that free enterprise is the cornerstone of economical success. Trump, despite all the big claims, turned out to be a regular protectionist, but Michael could very well deliver on his promises.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

"Damn, learn about your Constitution."

I'm learning that the Showboating Liberals, with their Trump Impeachment Hearing, soap opera drama, is all about professionally pandering, catering, and babying up to their like minded Liberal follower fan bases?

6 days of educating the Public with their Political Civil War, on display through those same Impeachment Hearings.

They are publicly Abusing the U.S. Constitution every day.

The #2A gets Abused.

The Bill of Rights get Abused every day.

And from both sides of the Liberal and Conservative Aisles, none of those Politicians want loosen their individual Political Apple Carts, by afraid to Alienate their voter fan bases?

Gun violence crimes every day.

U.S citizens young and old, being victimized by the Abusers of the Constitution?

It gets dragged through the Political Mud, from Both Political Parties.

I know and understand the Constitution, but I also have come to understand, how some individuals, want to mess with it, for their own political gain, or in watching how some toy with it, to reinforce their individual citizen stances.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I care about corruption wherever it is.  Why do i care about joe biden...because he is not joe schmoe, he was the vice president. Trump can be right in investigating this evem though joe biden is his political rival.

Ok first, just to understand your point before we go further, what do you suspect Joe Biden of exactly? And what event triggered this suspicion?

Again the previous admin did it with a falsified fisa and fake dossier...that i find wrong.  Investigating trump on russia with actual evidence is not wrong.

On this, the dossier certainly tainted the warrant, and it should have been discarded from the start as crap, but it was not the legal impetus for the investigation into Russia meddling in the election... A few things overlap here, 1) Russia, 2) some Americans (Manafort, Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc) who happened to work for the Trump campaign and 3) Trump himself... 

The fact that Russia did interfere in the election is crystal clear and undeniable, was it enough to actually tip the election results? Probably not, and even if it was, it doesn't follow that Trump had any knowledge of it... Even if the aforementioned members of his campaign, who are in jail right now, had such knowledge and contacts with Russian agents. I honestly believe this to be the case: Trump did not influence Russia into doing this... We can talk about this somewhere else as it is only tangentially relevant to this impeachment procedure but this is my view on that topic...  

Not many people think biden will even be the nominee

 It doesn't matter if he is or not, he (Biden) could quit the race or die tomorrow and Trump's actions would still matter, as any presidential action matters, and they'd still be impeachable actions in this case...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

No comment other then the empty "Funny" emoji, for the below?

"Damn, learn about your Constitution."

I'm learning that the Showboating Liberals, with their Trump Impeachment Hearing, soap opera drama, is all about professionally pandering, catering, and babying up to their like minded Liberal follower fan bases?

6 days of educating the Public with their Political Civil War, on display through those same Impeachment Hearings.

They are publicly Abusing the U.S. Constitution every day.

The #2A gets Abused.

The Bill of Rights get Abused every day.

And from both sides of the Liberal and Conservative Aisles, none of those Politicians want loosen their individual Political Apple Carts, by afraid to Alienate their voter fan bases?

Gun violence crimes every day.

U.S citizens young and old, being victimized by the Abusers of the Constitution?

It gets dragged through the Political Mud, from Both Political Parties.

I know and understand the Constitution, but I also have come to understand, how some individuals, want to mess with it, for their own political gain, or in watching how some toy with it, to reinforce their individual citizen stances. 

@Plaffelvohfen

Hillary Clinton is the Liberal, who cost herself the Presidency of the United States, because of her illicit decisions in regards to her 30,000 plus missing emails, and her actions in regards to Bernie Sanders?

This Liberal, from what I've heard, felt like she was owed the Presidency, or that it, in a sense belonged to her by default?

"Clinton wasn't impeached you dimwit, she wasn't reelected, don't use words you don't understand."

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. I suspect that joe biden has a relationship with his son and knew his son was doing something underhanded.  I then think he got the prosecuter fired because he was looking into the company his son was working for.

There are enough question marks there to investigate.

I agree mostly with your viewpoint on russia, why i brought the fake dossier and fisa warrant was that they were spying on a political rival based on false premises and no one seems to care.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen. I suspect that joe biden has a relationship with his son and knew his son was doing something underhanded.  I then think he got the prosecuter fired because he was looking into the company his son was working for.

There are enough question marks there to investigate.

I agree mostly with your viewpoint on russia, why i brought the fake dossier and fisa warrant was that they were spying on a political rival based on false premises and no one seems to care.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Oh? Parents have relationship with their children, and that is suspicious of course, but I guess it's different for Ivanka, Jared, etc, right?  

Can you point to any evidence that his son "was doing something underhanded" or is this just slandering hearsay? I would be quite impressed if you had any such evidence, as it would be evidence that UK intelligence, EU intelligence and US intelligence couldn't find despite their vast resources... So, can you impress me? I highly doubt it... I challenge you to present valid evidence that would constitute legal grounds for probable cause for investigation into Hunter Biden...

The premise was not that the Trump campaign had done anything wrong, it was that Russia did... What muddle the investigation was that some Americans who were in contact with Russian agents were working for the Trump campaign, working for a candidate is not sufficient ground to prevent federal agencies from performing their duty... The investigation was warranted and valid as subsequent trials and convictions demonstrate...

Haydn_E_Sheldon

Only in the democrats minds

Haydn_E_Sheldon

Only in the democrats minds

Haydn_E_Sheldon

Only in the democrats minds

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen
The son was making hundreds of thousands of dollars at a position he had no business being in.

From what i know trumps children arent known for: getting a college student pregnant, spending their family's fortune on hookers, getting caught with a crack pipe in there car after a dui, and sleeping with their brothers widow while married.  Ivanka has much higher credentials, and already has a business, shes not making a fortune off her position.

Also not yet completely confirmed but there are reports that millions of dollars were wired into his account from the Ukrainians.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

On what grounds do you assert that he was not qualified to fill this position? And how does it matter how much he was paid? It's a private business, how much he made is irrelevant, unless making money is a crime now?? Do you even know what position he filled with Burisma? Make a quick search, it's easy to find, if you're actually interested in the truth, which I doubt at this point... 

As for those reports, stop feeding on Breitbart or the Blaze ... 

Izni

He is slippery like a fish so I highly doubt.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen He was a board member for burisma with a bachelors degree in history...do those sound like good credentials.

There are reports that they hired him in order to gain access with the state department.

He was ousted from the military for cocaine.
How do know all the reports about him i told you were false...i dont ever go on breitbart, blaze, or fox.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen He was a board member for burisma with a bachelors degree in history...do those sound like good credentials.

Good, we can now recognize you are misinformed... He does hold a history degree from Georgetown but he's also a lawyer who graduated from Yale, and was recruited as one as a non-executive director who provided advice on legal issues.So let me be clear, here's the timeline...

• H. Biden was hired in April 2014, at the time the founder Mykola Zlochevskiy was already under investigation by UK, US and Ukranian officials... Zlochevskiy  european account were frozen by the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
  
• In May 2014, Poroshenko wins the presidency in Ukraine and appoints Vitaly Yarema as prosecutor general.
• In August 2014, Yarema opens an investigation of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy on suspicion of “unlawful enrichment.” (triggered by the UK earlier investigation)
• In October 2014, Ukraine’s Parliament passes a law establishing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), a priority of anti-corruption campaigners who’d helped lead the revolution and of the U.S. government (led by Biden) and other international backers of Ukraine. The country’s anti-corruption plans also include a special High Anti-Corruption Court, which Poroshenko and Parliament slow-rolled until domestic and foreign advocates again exerted pressure over the past year. In fact, the U.S. and Europe required the Ukrainian government to fund NABU in exchange for financial aid. NABU’s early years are an uphill battle in the face of documented efforts by Parliament and the Prosecutor General’s Office to undermine its work.
• A British court conducts a hearing on Dec. 3-5, 2014, and unblocks Zlochevskiy accounts in a Jan. 21, 2015 judgment, (full text), finding that none of the evidence “establishes reasonable grounds for a belief that his assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office.”
  
• Still, in February 2015, U.S. administration (including J. Biden) conveys harsh criticism of prosecutor general office for its botched handling of Zlochevsky/Burisma... George Kent, who was then-senior anti-corruption coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau and had at the time been selected for deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, met in the Ukrainian capital with a deputy prosecutor from Prosecutor General Yarema’s office, according to his congressional testimony. Kent, who had long pushed Ukrainian prosecutors for investigations into Zlochevsky, “scolded” the deputy prosecutor for having “shut the criminal case” that had been the basis for the U.K. court freezing Zlochevsky’s assets, demanding, “Who took the bribe and how much was it?,” Kent asked. Kent’s effort was coordinated with the Justice Department, 
• Feb. 10, 2015  – Viktor Shokin takes office as Ukraine’s prosecutor general, replacing Yarema.
  
• Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymieing anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma. Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption.
  
• Fall 2015 – J.Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.
  
• John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress: “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. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly (Full text) about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.” 
  
• In January and February 2016, Biden did put a lot of pressure on Ukraine to fire Shokin, but “The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practice,” the New York Times reported at the time. Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. He told PolitiFact that “virtually everyone” he knew in the U.S. government “felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office.”
• Yuriy Lutsenko,takes office as prosecutor general replacing Shokin, According to the New York Times, “Lutsenko took a hard line against Burisma.” 
  

Joe Biden (and many other western countries) pressured Ukraine to investigate corruption, including Burisma... 

And for someone who doesn't read Breitbart, Blaze or Fox, you do parrot their debunked talking points a lot imo... This whole Biden pseudo-scandal is a manufactured red herring that doesn't stand to the facts, just face it...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

What doesnt make sense is that Shokin at the time was investigating corruption and was looking into burisma.  He was so called "corrupt". They got him fired and the person that replaced him stopped investigating them... i think most people can agree Burisma dealings looked fishy.

In general, i listen to the daily wire, and tim poole. If you have advice on any other sources of information, give a recommendation.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Shokin shelved the Burisma investigation and a lot of others, that is why everyone (including Biden) was pushing for his removal (see here text), not the opposite!!

My sources for news are Reuters, Associated Press (AP), C-SPAN, BBC, justsecurity.org... For a slightly left leaning pov try Politico or NY times, for slightly right leaning pov try the Hill or WSJ, those are the least biased news sources about facts...  For analysis of events, Time, Forbes, Business insider are the less biased sources... 

Anything else goes from hyper to extreme partisanship and will use loaded words and appeal to emotions to further either a left or right agenda...

all4actt

So now that we have seen what the Democrates have and consider proof.

Here is my opinion.  The Democrates have no facts to backup their assertions that Trump commited an impeachable offence.  They only offered one fact witness.  The current Ambassador who did not state any evidence of bribery.

The constutional experts the Democrates brought in are well known for their dislike of President Trump.  Another mistake on their part.  The Republicans who should have been able bring in an equal amount of witnesses smartly brought in someone who is a strong Democratic supporter who disagreed with the others and basically said there wasn't  fact based evidence to have an impeachment  be justified.  He further more said for this impeachment to go foward would constitute an abuse of power by the Democratic Party.  He also said that there needed to be further investigations to legitimize the proceedings. Basically he was saying they need to find facts to back their aligations.

Why have they not subpoena and called white house official they stated they wanted to testify to do just that, testify?  The courts ruled that they could not ignore the subpoenas.

Why did the Democrates fail to follow predented rules of of an official inquiry?  

Why have Democrates consistantly blocked the minority committee members the right to call witnesses?

Why was Nadler holding back full disclosure from the Minority Party of the testimony of everyone that was interviewed?  

They know without any Republican support they won't get it past the Senate.  They also know or should know that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who would be overseeing the Senate trial under the laws of a trial could not allow the majority of the testomny given in the Intellegence Committee hearings.

Given all these  facts, the Democrats wanting to move forward with impeachment on those "witnesses "  testimony  only shows that this is more of a political stunt then an honest effort to unseat a standing President for wrong doing.  

I am not saying the call was "perfect" or even saying that he should have made a request of Zelenski in regards to Biden being investigated.  I am just saying it isn't impeachable.

MayCaesar

Happy_Killbot said:

If the CEO of your ISP told you today that your service you had already paid for would be cut in half until you asked all your neighbors to switch to their service, that would be illegal. But for some reason, when the POTUS does substantially the same thing, he is "setting foreign policy" and "operating within his rights"

This depends on the terms of your contract with your ISP. If the contract assumes your agreement with any possible policy changes on the part of the ISP, then it would be absolutely legal, even if very unethical.

Trump is the head of the executive branch. He has full right to decide how (and when, if at all) to transfer the Congress-approved aid. Such powers are given to him by the Constitution. Now, you may disapprove of this, and I certainly do, as I do of the whole institute of presidency - but this is how the system is designed, and simply disliking it does not make it false.

All presidents on numerous occasions have taken things into their own hands, defying the immediate will of the Congress and withholding the action until an agreement with the Congress is reached. Obama did it to push ACA through, despite the Congress systematically rejecting the proposed versions of the act; and Bush did it with the Patriot Act. Yet there was no serious discussion on the potential impeachment procedure, even though the actions of Bush and Obama had a much bigger (and negative) impact on the US, than Trump withholding aid for a poor inconsequential nation.

This is a purely partisan issue, having nothing to do with any actual harm dealt to the US by Trump. Trump has dealt a lot of harm obviously, but he has not really done anything that the system has not intended him to do. It is time to consider that, perhaps, the system itself is faulty. Perhaps, being $22 trillion in debt, we should talk about more serious issues, than "Trump has been mean on the phone and we need to get rid of him".

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I'm making the assumption here that the CEO's request is not part of the original contract and no special clause is relevant in the EULA, thus it would be a breach of client relation laws.

The problem isn't necessarily what he did, it is how he did it that's the problem, making it an abuse of power. There are other official means to do what he intended to do, so why do it on the down low?

I would disagree that Ukraine is inconsequential. They are a major threat to Russia, especially if they join the EU. This is why Russia does things like stimulate nationalism, influence brexit, and meddle in US elections as proved by the Mueller report, for which Trump was not conclusively proved to have played a part in. The ongoing war between the Ukraine and Russia could potentially lead to the destabilization of the region. Russia can't beat NATO directly, but they can beat each individual state separably, so they divide and conquer and engage in non-linear warfare.

At this point It is basically guaranteed that Trump will be impeached, probably in the next week. I'm going to up my odds to 80/20 in favor of.