Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear.

Once again, so?

What’s wrong or unique about that?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?...

I am not religious, so I couldn’t care less what a fringe religious community thinks.

And then there is this:

“Nearly 200 evangelical leaders condemned Christianity Today editorial on Trump”

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/nearly-200-evangelical-leaders-condemned-christianity-today-editorial-on-trump

[RSL]

I have already answered to Slobodan.

Whatever that means. . .

And I apologize for my imperfect mastery of English.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's okay. Your mastery of English is quite in line with most of your contemporaries. Actually, the expression "begs the question" accurately describes the Democrat hearings.

[RSL]

It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.

[Craig Lamson]

Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ?
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.

To both Bart and Bernard...

Sorry to intrude into this discussion but a point here needs to be made.  Im goinmg to make an assumption about both of you.  I'm going to assume neither of you actually watched the full hearings live and that you got your information from news sources.  First I did watch all of the hearings live and in person (a nice bonus of it being my slow season)  Having said that both of you are simply misinformed. I just did a search to see wha the media said about the Sondland testimony.  The big takeaway was there was a QUID PRO QUO.  Link after link says the same thing.  And tecnically they are correct , but in actually it is truly FAKE NEWS.  If thats all you read or, like Bart only show the Goldman cross you think you know what happened.  But if you really want the truth you are going to be very hard pressed to find it in the media coverage of the days events, especially on the net.  Why? Because the truth does not fit the narrative. 

Upon cross examination by the Republincans Sondland is forced to admit...more than once...that he was never told there was a QUID PRO QUO.  It was only his BELIEF.  This Mike Turner exchange sums it up perfectly...

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

This exchange is directly tied to Military Aid.  There were others tied to the White house meeting.  And again its the same story. Sondland only has hearsay and no direct evidence that Trump said the meeting was dependant on investigations.  But good luck finding that in the media accounts of his hearings.

Please don't preach that you know what happened unless you actually watched the hearings.  Your reliance on published media accounts leaves your blindly uninformed.

Here's the long and short of it and it was expressed so well by Johnathan Turley.  Alternative evidence about the nature of the requests have not really been explored in the Democratic case.  The evidence is not really uncontested.  You may believe the Democratic narrative but its not the only one.

Could it be possible that the requests for investigations into the 2016 election and into the actions of Biden and his son are actually of value to the Country?  Does our country have a need to know what happened in 2016?  How about how Former Vice President Biden acted?

I think it matters.   



 

[Craig Lamson]

No Joe, Sonderland's testimony is one and only and clearly confirms the quid pro quo.

The Republicans tried very hard to focus the discussion on something else, which is the way Trump spoke about the quid pro quo. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Sonderland did confirm there was one.

You are attempting once again to deform facts.

What I would like you to think about is why you need to do this? Why need to deform the facts if they support your views. Or if they don't, why not challenge your position? Nothing forces you to remain stuck in deception.

Cheers,
Bernard

You need to expand your knowlege....
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

[Craig Lamson]

Show us, with video, or with any hard evidence you have, how he contradicted his morning testimony in any way that disproves the fact that he witnessed the QPP.

You're not Trump, you can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.

Not if the Congress approved funding is made conditional upon the announcement of an inquiry. And yes, it was about the Bidens, and not about Burisma nor was it about corruption concerns because there are regular channels for that and the new President Zelenski was serious about addressing such issues. It was for personal political purposes that U.S. defense expenditure was used as corrupt extortion, and they had been plotting this for months already. And part of that money is still being withheld. This makes it a US defense security issue.

People also seem to ignore that Trump deviated from his talking points script that was prepared for that call, when he asked a foreign power to intervene in the US elections. He also invited China later to do the same.
Waiting for the next elections (which he tried to have influenced by a foreign country) is therefore not an option, because Trump thinks he can get away with anything. He is not an old style king, nobody is above the law.

[Rob C]

It's probably about time for this. The author sums up why Trump was elected, and his summary quite adequately explains why he'll be elected again, and why the Democrats' impeachment Kabuki will work against them. The Democrats will never understand this, nor will many of our posters here.

-------------------------------------------

There's a reason Donald Trump was elected, and it wasn't because of the Russians. It wasn't because of his tweets. It wasn't his crassness. It wasn't because of his money. It's not because he's a racist or a white supremacist. Not because he's a misogynist, homophobe or Islamophobe. It wasn't because of his oratory skills or his diplomacy.

In fact, his crassness, money, lack of diplomacy, twitter hysteria and awkward public speaking all worked against him. They were all liabilities in the eyes of most Americans. Libelous claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia fortified his adversaries and gave discomfort to us.

Hillary Clinton’s miscalculated campaign strategy wasn't the reason he was elected. And it wasn't her platform that defeated her. Nor was it the Electoral College.

That an inarticulate, abrasive man was elected president is a tell, a reveal of the state and the mood of average America. A man who can be insulting, demeaning, outrageous, arrogant and bombastic was the choice of half the country to serve as our leader because he more than holds a light on deceit, corruption and injustice, he lashes them to a tree where the sun is bright and relentless, where their shadows are exposed for us all to see. And they hate him for it.

We chose a man who appears insensitive and careless and elevated him to the most powerful leadership office in history because we are watching the world hemorrhage from dishonesty and tyranny. Tired of broken promises, neglected constituents, enriched politicians and a protected ruling class we chose an outsider and a brawler because he promised to return our stolen pride. Americans voted for an imperfect man who sacrificed his life of prosperity and privilege because he promised he would fight for us against those who deceive, destabilize and abuse us.

It’s not because he’s nice. We didn’t elect him because we would emulate him, but because he knows the dragon that is eating our soul and he has the courage and tenacity to go into its lair and lure it out where we can fight it. Donald Trump isn’t our president because he’ll smooth wrinkles and calm storms, but because the alternative is far worse.

Eloquent speeches divided us. Hope was chained. Change stole our dreams, our children and our morals. Flamboyance imitated Camelot and it wounded America. The great experiment was fundamentally changed.

It was time to fight and we needed a Patton. This is why we elected him.


By Ward Wettlin in The Official Walter E. Williams Fan Club I got permission from Ward to copy this and paste it.

I have hardly ever heard of a western head honcho politician who did not benefit from his time in office and go on to capitalise on it. Starting on the other foot, already rich, the future goodies are even more attractive because the doors have been oiled, the locks have had different sets of keys cut, and the future is back to square one but with a massively stengthened arm thanks to the recent "job" providing access not previously possible.

As for fighting against those who "deceive, destabilize and abuse us", isn't that exactly what he has done? No swamp appears drained, just reinforced with a new breed of bigger, stronger alligator crocodile. And guess what: he now has a permanent, highly skilled and highly connected security arm to protect him whatever he does after office. He can even take on the Mafia! Oh, wait...

;-)

[Alan Klein]

There is no apparent corruption, if there had been Republicans would have investigated when Biden was vice-president.

Even the suspicion of corruption did absolutely not justify what Trump did nor make it more constitutional.

But I am nonethless in favor of Biden testifying under oath as it would have as major benefit to quiet you down.

Cheers,
Bernard

Any 12 year old knows Biden got rid of the Ukrainian investigator to protect the company his kid earned $50K a month from.  He should be investigated for corruption.  Never mind testifying in the Senate which he already said he would not do.  Biden is a crook.

[Craig Lamson]

Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ?
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.

Just to add some clarity...Cross of Sundland by Republican council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E

[JoeKitchen]

Wow, the conversation really progressed since last night, well in posts anyway. 

Thanks Craig for posting those links. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The White House paused financial military assistance to Ukraine 91 minutes after the disputed phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky ended, according to released government documents requested by The Center for Public Integrity on Sunday. (see attachment)

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-worried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/

When President Donald Trump ordered a halt to aid to Ukraine last summer, defense officials and diplomats worried first that it would undermine U.S. national security. Ukraine is, as some of them later testified before Congress, on the front lines of Russian aggression, and only robust American support would fend off aggressive Moscow meddling in the West. This worry eventually helped galvanize congressional support for one of the two impeachment articles approved by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18.

But there was also a separate, less-noticed facet of the internal administration uproar set off by Trump’s July 12 order stopping the flow of $391 million in weapons and security assistance to Ukraine. Some senior administration officials worried that by defying a law ordering that the funds be spent within a defined period, Trump was asking the officials involved to take an action that was not merely unwise but flatly illegal.

[Craig Lamson]

The White House paused financial military assistance to Ukraine 91 minutes after the disputed phone call between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky ended, according to released government documents requested by The Center for Public Integrity on Sunday. (see attachment)

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-worried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/

Did you even read the link you posted Bart?

Did you read this passage?

"Trump’s formal order blocking the Pentagon’s portion of the aid was nonetheless communicated to OMB by one of his aides on July 12."

[Peter McLennan]

The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.

Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...

[Craig Lamson]

Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...

Was it for personal reasons?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Did you even read the link you posted Bart?

Did you read this passage?

"Trump’s formal order blocking the Pentagon’s portion of the aid was nonetheless communicated to OMB by one of his aides on July 12."

Yes Craig. And where was the approval by Congress?

[Peter McLennan]

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/gordon-sondland-testifies-impeachment/card/1574279877

I did watch the coverage.  Live and continuous.  Not all of it, but over 90% of it.

Your rebuttal is an example of effective FUD lawyering.  I have to give the guy credit for cornering Sondland.  It must have consumed significant rehearsal time.

It is, however, like much of the observed Republican shenanigans, both instructive and despicable.


vis:

"So, your honor, the witness can provide no real additional collaboration for the defendant's guilt other than his own direct, personal observations.  Therefore he's lying and his entire testimony is invalid".

[Peter McLennan]

Was it for personal reasons?

<s> No, he did it for the greater glory of liberal democracies everywhere.  </s>

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...