All Things Impeachment Inquiry

I’m racist b/c I used the same term as Biden, Nadler, and several others. Hahaha

What would lefties do without double standards?

It really sucks when they get caught in their own traps.
No. You're racist because you're racist. Clearly, the orange one being racist isn't a deal-breaker for you. So at this point, I just have to assume that you're racist too.
 

bga1

Active member
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Interesting that the Obama administration gave zero military aid to Ukraine (helping Russia) , then did give aid to Ukraine for often bogus "anti-corruption" efforts. One such effort was the reopening of the black ledgers on Paul Manafort when the Obama administration got an inkling from the DNC's Alexandra Chalupa about the Manafort's soon coming offer to work free for the Trump campaign. 2016 election interference efforts by the Obama administration were viewed as "anti-corruption" efforts. LOL
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Interesting that the Obama administration gave zero military aid to Ukraine (helping Russia) , then did give aid to Ukraine for often bogus "anti-corruption" efforts. One such effort was the reopening of the black ledgers on Paul Manafort when the Obama administration got an inkling from the DNC's Alexandra Chalupa about the Manafort's soon coming offer to work free for the Trump campaign. 2016 election interference efforts by the Obama administration were viewed as "anti-corruption" efforts. LOL
And threatened to withhold aid if they didn’t fire that prosecutor.

Not a problem at all. :rolleyes:
 

bga1

Active member
And threatened to withhold aid if they didn’t fire that prosecutor.

Not a problem at all. :rolleyes:
JTF and others claim that the following are illegal and impeachable:

1. Attaching action on corruption to aid
2. Claiming that the President has the authority to cut off aid

I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Joe Biden

As of today CNN has a poll out that shows Dems are so desperate that they have Biden leading by a 35 -19 edge over Warren. Biden of course would be immediately impeached by Democrats upon taking office, for the above actions.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
JTF and others claim that the following are illegal and impeachable:

1. Attaching action on corruption to aid
2. Claiming that the President has the authority to cut off aid

I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Joe Biden

As of today CNN has a poll out that shows Dems are so desperate that they have Biden leading by a 35 -19 edge over Warren. Biden of course would be immediately impeached by Democrats upon taking office, for the above actions.
This is a false misframing. Misinformation.

The part they claim is illegal and impeachable is that he did actions 1 and 2 *for personal gain*.

You leave that out, on purpose.
 

bga1

Active member
This is a false misframing. Misinformation.

The part they claim is illegal and impeachable is that he did actions 1 and 2 *for personal gain*.

You leave that out, on purpose.
How is it that you assume that Biden did not do this for personal gain? I and most others actually believe he did. I have been told that if someone believes (Mr Taylor for example) that the President or anyone in his administration did something wrong- then you just believe that they did it. No other evidence needed for you. Your prosecution of Trump is fully an article of faith for you. Do it by any means.

Biden's son's company, Burisma, was being investigated by the prosecutor he wanted fired. After that prosecutor was fired, the investigation was over. Also, and much more important, the prosecutor was involved in looking at Urkaine interference in the 2016 election in conjunction with the Obama administration and the DNC.

By contrast there was no personal gain in Trump's request. Trump said- "can you do me a favor" and that was followed by a request for looking into 2016 election interference.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
How is it that you assume that Biden did not do this for personal gain? I and most others actually believe he did. I have been told that if someone believes (Mr Taylor for example) that the President or anyone in his administration did something wrong- then you just believe that they did it. No other evidence needed for you. Your prosecution of Trump is fully an article of faith for you. Do it by any means.

Biden's son's company, Burisma, was being investigated by the prosecutor he wanted fired. After that prosecutor was fired, the investigation was over. Also, and much more important, the prosecutor was involved in looking at Urkaine interference in the 2016 election in conjunction with the Obama administration and the DNC.

By contrast there was no personal gain in Trump's request. Trump said- "can you do me a favor" and that was followed by a request for looking into 2016 election interference.
What does Biden's actions have to do with the decision Trump made???

"Your honor and people of the jury, you can't convince my client of murder, because just last year my client's neighbor murdered a person. Therefore, if the neighbor gets to do it, then my client should get to do it! Case closed."


"Can you do me a favor" -- that is literally, asking for something for person gain. You are a native English speaker, yes? You don't get to redefine the meaning of words, as you see fit.
 

bga1

Active member
What does Biden's actions have to do with the decision Trump made???

"Your honor and people of the jury, you can't convince my client of murder, because just last year my client's neighbor murdered a person. Therefore, if the neighbor gets to do it, then my client should get to do it! Case closed."


"Can you do me a favor" -- that is literally, asking for something for person gain. You are a native English speaker, yes? You don't get to redefine the meaning of words, as you see fit.
What it has everything to do with is your hypocrisy. You sir, are a giant hypocrite. You don't care about equal justice, you want "justice" applied to the side you disagree with you. Next step for you should be moving to China.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
What it has everything to do with is your hypocrisy. You sir, are a giant hypocrite. You don't care about equal justice, you want "justice" applied to the side you disagree with you. Next step for you should be moving to China.
I want Trump impeached (or to resign) because he illegally misused the office of POTUS for personal gain.

Simple as that.


What Biden did or didn't do, has nothing to do with that.
 

saintpaulguy

Active member
Btw, you can’t have a quid pro quo without a quo.

As has already been pointed out, Ukraine didn’t know about aid being withheld until August 29. It has been repeated numerous times, Trump said “no quid pro quos of any kind”.

Zelenskyy said he never felt pressured. Zelenskyy didn’t restart the Burisma investigation in August. The aid was restored before any investigation or announcement was made.

Virtually everything that Taylor claimed the Trump administration was trying to do, wasn’t done.
New York Times--
KIEV, Ukraine — To Democrats who say that President Trump’s decision to freeze a $391 million military aid package to Ukraine was intended to bully Ukraine’s leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump’s political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There could not have been any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know the assistance had been blocked.

Following testimony by William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the freezing of the aid was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand for the investigations, the president took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to approvingly quote a Republican member of Congress saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”

But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.

The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than United States and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. And it means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Mr. Trump.

The communications did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations. But in the communications, officials from the United States and Ukraine discuss the need to bring in the same senior aide to Mr. Zelensky who had been dealing with Mr. Giuliani about Mr. Trump’s demands for the investigations, signaling a possible link between the matters.

Word of the aid freeze got to the Ukrainians at a moment when Mr. Zelensky, who had taken office a little more than two months earlier after a campaign in which he promised to root out corruption and stand up to Russia, was off balance and uncertain how to stabilize his country’s relationship with the United States.

Days earlier, he had listened to Mr. Trump implore him on a half-hour call to pursue investigations touching on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Zelensky’s efforts to secure a visit to the White House — a symbolic affirmation of support he considered vital at a time when Russia continued to menace Ukraine’s eastern border — seemed to be stalled. American policy toward Ukraine was being guided not by career professionals but by Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Taylor told the impeachment investigators that it was only on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting in Warsaw between Mr. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence that the Ukrainians were directly told the aid would be dependent on Mr. Zelensky giving Mr. Trump something he wanted: an investigation into Burisma, the company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son.

American and Ukrainian officials have asserted that Ukraine learned that the aid had been held up only around the time it became public through a news story at the end of August.

The aid freeze is getting additional scrutiny from the impeachment investigators on Wednesday as they question Laura K. Cooper, a deputy assistant defense secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. This month, Democrats subpoenaed both the Defense Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget for records related to the assistance freeze.

As Mr. Taylor’s testimony suggests, the Ukrainians did not confront the Trump administration about the freeze until they were told in September that it was linked to the demand for the investigations. The Ukrainians appear to have initially been hopeful that the problem could be resolved quietly and were reluctant to risk a public clash at a delicate time in relations between the two nations.

The disclosure that the Ukrainians knew of the freeze by early August corroborates, and provides additional details about, a claim made by a C.I.A. officer in his whistle-blower complaint that sparked the impeachment inquiry by House Democrats.

“As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it,” the anonymous whistle-blower wrote. The complainant said that he learned that the instruction to freeze the assistance “had come directly from the president,” and said it “might have a connection with the overall effort to pressure Ukrainian leadership.”

Publicly, Mr. Zelensky has insisted he felt no pressure to pursue the investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

There was no blackmail,” Mr. Zelensky said at a news conference earlier this month. He cited as evidence that he “had no idea the military aid was held up” at the time of his July 25 call with Mr. Trump, when Mr. Trump pressed him for investigations into the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

Mr. Zelensky has said he knew about the hold up of the military aid before his meeting in Poland on Sept. 1 with Mr. Pence, but has been vague about exactly when he learned about it. “When I did find out, I raised it with Pence at a meeting in Warsaw,” he said this month.

In conversations over several days in early August, a Pentagon official discussed the assistance freeze directly with a Ukrainian government official, according to records and interviews. The Pentagon official suggested that Mr. Mulvaney had been pushing for the assistance to be withheld, and urged the Ukrainians to reach out to him.

The Pentagon official described Mr. Mulvaney’s motivations only in broad terms but made clear that the same Ukrainian official, Andriy Yermak, who had been negotiating with Mr. Giuliani over the investigations and a White House visit being sought by Mr. Zelensky should also reach out to Mr. Mulvaney over the hold on military aid.

A senior administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue said on Monday that Mr. Mulvaney “had absolutely no communication with the Ukranians about this issue.”

Ukrainian officials had grown suspicious that the assistance was in jeopardy because formal talks with the Pentagon on its release had concluded by June without any apparent problem.

In talks during the spring with American officials, the Ukrainians had resolved conditions for the release of the assistance, and believed everything was on schedule, according to Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine’s former vice prime minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration.

But by early August, the Ukrainians were struggling to get clear answers from their American contacts about the status of the assistance, according to American officials familiar with the Ukrainians’ efforts.

In the days and weeks after top Ukrainian officials were alerted to the aid freeze, Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department’s special envoy to Ukraine, were working with Mr. Giuliani to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky to deliver that would commit him to pursuing the investigations, according to text messages between the men turned over to the House impeachment investigators.

The text messages between Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and the top Zelensky aide did not mention the hold up of the aid. It was only in September, after the Warsaw meeting, that Mr. Taylor wrote in a text message to Mr. Sondland, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

After being informed on Sept. 1 in Warsaw that the aid would be released only if Mr. Zelensky agreed to the investigations, Ukrainian officials, including their national security adviser and defense minister, were troubled by their inability to get answers to questions about the freeze from United States officials, Mr. Taylor testified.

Through the summer, Mr. Zelensky had been noncommittal about the demands from Mr. Volker, Mr. Sondland and Mr. Giuliani for a public commitment to the investigations. On Sept. 5, Mr. Taylor testified, Mr. Zelensky met in Kiev with Senators Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, and Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

Mr. Zelensky’s first question, Mr. Taylor said, was about the security aid. The senators responded, Mr. Taylor said, that Mr. Zelensky “should not jeopardize bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.”

But Mr. Sondland was still pressing for a commitment from Mr. Zelensky, and was pressing him to do a CNN interview in which he would talk about pursuing the investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Zelensky never did the interview and never made the public commitment sought by the White House, although a Ukrainian prosecutor later said he would “audit” a case involving the owner of the company that paid Hunter Biden as a board member.

Mr. Giuliani has said he had nothing to do with the assistance freeze and did not talk to Mr. Trump or “anybody in the government” about it. “I didn’t know about it until I read about it in the newspaper,” he said in an interview last week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 

lucasjfoster

New member
Can’t wait for the war that old white boomers are about to start when their orange chimp leader is impeached.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

justthefacts

Active member
JTF and others claim that the following are illegal and impeachable:

1. Attaching action on corruption to aid
2. Claiming that the President has the authority to cut off aid

I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Joe Biden

As of today CNN has a poll out that shows Dems are so desperate that they have Biden leading by a 35 -19 edge over Warren. Biden of course would be immediately impeached by Democrats upon taking office, for the above actions.
I think you're arguing in bad faith and HAVE to know this already, but the argument isn't that you can't attach preconditions to aid, it's that those preconditions have to serve the United States, and not your political interests.
 
I think you're arguing in bad faith and HAVE to know this already, but the argument isn't that you can't attach preconditions to aid, it's that those preconditions have to serve the United States, and not your political interests.
We're about a week away from the White House just admitting that they did it and suggesting that this is how a "real President" should try to ferret out corruption.
 

justthefacts

Active member
We're about a week away from the White House just admitting that they did it and suggesting that this is how a "real President" should try to ferret out corruption.
If you read through this thread, they've essentially already done that. Simultaneous arguments:

1) Can you prove Trump was actually directly involved?
2) The people saying that the aid was held up as a precondition to security assistance are DeepState political hacks
3) Trump held up the aid because of legitimate reasons
 

bga1

Active member
New York Times--
If I was a leftist, I would stop right there and say New York Times!!! LOL But I am not. So I will engage you on this.

In July the phone call was made.
In August we find that the Ukrainians were starting to get concerned about their aid package ...was it being held up and why. It is unclear if the Ukrainians knew why. But we now know for certain the the WB was wrong.

Recall that the WB's complaint was that the phone call was shocking and the President was making a quid pro quo offer in the phone call to exchange aid for his own political benefit. We now know that this is fully false. The Ukraines said- no pressure and they didn't even know at the time of the call that aid was being put on hold. Further they didn't know in August really why the aid was being held up- at least it is not clear that they did. They just started to get concerned-- well yeah, it's a lot of money.

In late August or early September Bill Taylor forms the opinion that there is some sort of quid pro quo happening in return for political purposes. But he texts Sondland and Sondland says no and that the President is explicitly saying there will be no quid pro quo.

The President is exactly right to tweet that the Ukrainians were unaware, certainly at the time of the call (which after all was the complaint) that the Ukrainians didn't know and were not pressured.

The President did exactly as I would hope he would do with foreign aid: He attempted to make sure that the taxpayers' money was used the best way possible as leverage to make sure that we are giving money to someone who will use it ethically. He should be expected to demand that the Ukrainians help with determining how their country was involved in 2016 election interference. Why did we expel all of those Russian diplomats? Why do we issue sanctions? Why do we give aid? We do all of these to elicit behavior that is favorable to our nation, in addition to being helpful (in the case of aid) to the country it is given to.

This is nothing but Trump hatred and we know it because of how the goal posts have moved since the complaint:

Phase 1. WB complaint- shocking Trump phone call with quid pro quo for political gain
Phase 2. Transcript released - Dems claim that the favor was asking for Biden to be investigated. To do so Dems lop out the midsection of the call and go right from "can you do me a favor" to the Biden section, paragraphs down in the conversation
Phase 3. Schiff caught working with the WB - we don't really need the WB anymore because we have the transcript and by the way we don't need quid pro quo (Adam Schiff)
Phase 4. Dems decide to start calling witnesses in closed settings and leak their most favorable impeachment evidence unopposed by questioning to the media. The media (NYT above and others are found fully cooperative.
Phase 5. We now have the smoking gun because Taylor, who also is tied in with Schiff and who met with Schiff's aide in Ukraine...well Taylor believes there WAS a quid pro quo- so now we are back to needing that and we have it! Because Taylor. Never mind that Sondland is on record as saying no and Volker says there was no quid pro quo and the Ukraines say there was no such pressure. But there is Taylor!

In the end you can say that you think Trump did wrong and that's an opinion you can have. This is not the type of thing that rises to impeachment and from my view, as I stated, I applaud Trump for asking that we get our money's worth.
 

bga1

Active member
If you read through this thread, they've essentially already done that. Simultaneous arguments:

1) Can you prove Trump was actually directly involved? Where is this argument? Please link
2) The people saying that the aid was held up as a precondition to security assistance are DeepState political hacks. Who says this?
3) Trump held up the aid because of legitimate reasons
Yes - point 3 is true and he did not do it explicitly in return for political gain for even with the knowledge of the Ukrainians. There was no pressure or quid pro quo



Do you say point three is illegal and impeachable?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
"he did not do it explicitly in return for political gain for even with the knowledge of the Ukrainians. There was no pressure or quid pro quo"

When in doubt -- just lie.
 
Top Bottom