The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (11 Viewers)

The Republican defense that no offense occurred because aid was eventually given to Ukraine is like saying a bank robbery is not a crime if you give the money back or if you get caught breaking in and don't take it. .

The offense (or crime depending on your definition) happened when Trump delayed military aid to an ally in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

I do not mean to say this to insult anyone on here who supports President Trump, but you have truly have blinders on to not see, or pretend to not see, that Trump was putting the screws to Ukraine to investigate his political rival.

It is kind of sad for me to watch elected US legislators use word games and twist facts to defend actions they know in their heart are wrong.

Just because he got caught and then released the aid doesn't absolve Trump. Its sad that even needs to be pointed out.

Vindman hasn’t testified in public yet. How do you know what lines of questioning were shot down and by who?

UncleTrvlingJim said:

I think this is why the whole drive to find out who the whistleblower is a sham meant to rile up the base. They have the actual witnesses in front of them. If they're concerned that there is some mastermind that sort of led them to believe that something shady was going on when they initially didn't have those concerns, the Republicans could have easily cross-examined those witnesses. "When did you first come to the belief that the President was holding up foreign aid in exchange for helping him politically?" "What led you to that belief?" And so on. If there was someone feeding them that info, that will come out in testimony.

But the Republicans aren't doing that, imo, because if they weren't led to that conclusion by political operative mole, then that just gives more air time against the President as the witness talks more about why they think the President's actions were improper. The Republicans don't actually believe what Beach Friends' is theorizing, so they don't want to go down that path through witness testimony.

Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is not the most effective way to get to the bottom of whether the WB had an effect on their testimony. They are not going to just volunteer that info.

Furthermore, even if they were inclined to offer that up it would not be a good strategy because Schiff has already let it be known that if you get close to a line of questioning that identifies the WB, he is going to shut it down.

CoolBrees said:

Vindman hasn’t testified in public yet. How do you know what lines of questioning were shot down and by who?

Click to expand...

From the transcript of his testimony. Look at his testimony beginning on about page 80 and 104.

Lots of problems in you post buddy.
First time you said he interrupted him. FALSE. It was Mr.Volkov who requested that the line of questioning from Castro cease as it was out of line and was obviously just trying to get him to unmask the WB. Volkov appealed to the Chair and Ranking (meadows). Chair agrees as is his right as the Chair. I do like Meadows telling someone to shut up though....

Here Castro is plain out going fishing for the name


and the “second time” you allege is too FALSE. Schiff didn’t interrupt. Rep Swallwell requested that Jim Jordan stop trying to out the WB and Schiff agreed. As is his right as Chairman.


The point is you are being fast and loose with the truth when you say Schiff cut him off twice. Some might say it is “alternative facts” you just stated.

Lastly, thanks for getting me to read Vindman’s testimony through. Trump is even guiltier than I thought.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

No, I don't think past President's have used the office of the Presidency and the resources of the United States to try to damage a political opponent for their own personal benefit. Do you have evidence that they have? If not, why do you think they have?

Click to expand...

The same government that basically lets corporations write the laws to benefit themselves and hamper competitors, installs industry insiders to lead the agency's that are supposed to police those very industries, writes the tax code with loopholes so the rich pay little to no taxes, use drones to kill innocent civilians and create more terrorists, interfere in elections around the world, actively support regime change, invade countries and physically overthrow governments, are supposed to be trusted to altruistic behind the scenes? Color me skeptical and I assume that there are varying levels of corruption throughout government.

Do you have evidence that Obama started this investigation outside normal channels? Do you have evidence that Obama was trying to go outside of normal oversight by having his personal lawyer run things? Do you have evidence that Obama tried to influence the electoral process by pressuring the FBI to announce their investigation into Trump right before the election to damage Trump politically? If so, then yes, I'd be concerned. But I haven't seen any evidence that Obama was trying to circumvent the normal investigative process to influence the 2016 election.

Click to expand...

No I don't have evidence of that, but it's very concerning what the FBI used to jumpstart the investigation into Trump and the election. We will know more about everything once the Durham investigation is complete. There better be ironclad proof of a crime for an administration to investigate their party's political rival in a presidential campaign. What is even more concerning than Obama was able to do that through all the proper channels.

As superchuck pointed out the DNC is a political entity. It's supposed to do things to benefit themselves politically. They aren't supported by taxpayers dollars and they aren't employed by the United States government. Trump is.

Now, if you have evidence that the DNC was coordinating with Ukraine on trying to damage Trump politically, let's lay it out there, because that would be interesting.

Click to expand...

Did you read the Politico article that talked about the DNC operative Alexander Chalupa coordinating with Ukraine to damage Trump and help Hillary that I posted?

A political party trying to use influence to win elections?!? Say it isn’t so.

The President trying to use the weight of his office for influence to win elections...... Huge problem. The President isn’t supposed to be a political hack. He’s the President for jeebus sakes.

If Rudy would have done this in league with the RNC and was threatening to withhold $ from private sources then it would just be shady. But the moment the office of the President, or any public official for that matter, uses their power for personal gain, it is abuse and illegal.

CoolBrees said:

Lots of problems in you post buddy.
First time you said he interrupted him. FALSE. It was Mr.Volkov who requested that the line of questioning from Castro cease as it was out of line and was obviously just trying to get him to unmask the WB. Volkov appealed to the Chair and Ranking (meadows). Chair agrees as is his right as the Chair. I do like Meadows telling someone to shut up though....

Here Castro is plain out going fishing for the name

and the “second time” you allege is too FALSE. Schiff didn’t interrupt. Rep Swallwell requested that Jim Jordan stop trying to out the WB and Schiff agreed. As is his right as Chairman.

The point is you are being fast and loose with the truth when you say Schiff cut him off twice. Some might say it is “alternative facts” you just stated.

Lastly, thanks for getting me to read Vindman’s testimony through. Trump is even guiltier than I thought.

Click to expand...

Schiff is the Chairman and he is the one who was making the rulings.

BobE said:

have some fun

Click to expand...

Bob... as funny as that might be to some, it starts out as a normal video and turns into a partisan meme, which is a no-go here. I am leaving it as an example. Please refrain from posting such on this board.

SaintForLife said:

The same government that basically lets corporations write the laws to benefit themselves and hamper competitors, installs industry insiders to lead the agency's that are supposed to police those very industries, writes the tax code with loopholes so the rich pay little to no taxes, use drones to kill innocent civilians and create more terrorists, interfere in elections around the world, actively support regime change, invade countries and physically overthrow governments, are supposed to be trusted to altruistic behind the scenes? Color me skeptical and I assume that there are varying levels of corruption throughout government.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they're behaving altruistically, I'm saying they are acting legally and within the bounds of convention.
Have some previous President's done something illegally and just not gotten caught? I'm sure it's possible, but I don't see why that means we should let those who did get caught escape censure.

SaintForLife said:

No I don't have evidence of that, but it's very concerning what the FBI used to jumpstart the investigation into Trump and the election. We will know more about everything once the Durham investigation is complete. There better be ironclad proof of a crime for an administration to investigate their party's political rival in a presidential campaign. What is even more concerning than Obama was able to do that through all the proper channels.

Click to expand...

How do you have iron clad proof of a crime before investigating? Isn't that what an investigation is supposed to determine? Whether there is iron clad proof before indictment?

I do think it's important to make sure all the proper procedures are followed before investigating any American.

SaintForLife said:

Did you read the Politico article that talked about the DNC operative Alexander Chalupa coordinating with Ukraine to damage Trump and help Hillary that I posted?

Click to expand...

I did. It talked about a consultant to the DNC that got information from Ukraine about Manafort working for the Russians. I was talking about the DNC coordinating with the Ukrainians committing illegal acts and offering US policy concessions in exchange for help in the election.

That was what the Trump campaign was being investigated for. Did they know about the Russians committing a crime against the DNC, and did they coordinate the release of stolen goods through Wikileaks with the Russians? Did Trump Jr, promise US policy concessions in his meeting (that Trump Sr lied about to everyone) with Russian operatives in exchange for political dirt on Hillary.

The reason they were being investigated is that Papadoulous bragged to an Australian diplomat that the Russians were going to help out by dishing out dirt on Hillary, and then the Russians released hacked emails from the DNC through Wikileaks. That raised the suspicion that some in the Trump campaign might have had prior knowledge of the Russian crime and was coordinating with the Russians further crimes.

wardorican said:

I found the quote from Kent that woke me up.

"You can't investigate corruption without pissing off corrupt people" Mr. Kent.

Yup. That's true, regardless of what you think about this investigation. Sorry for the TVP.

EDIT: @Andrus , that isn't in the filter. If it's too far, I can change it to ticking off. Sorry.

Click to expand...

I don't find that word to be crossing the line of acceptability here on this site, which is more adult oriented, so I left it off the profanity filter. That is subject to change.

When a judge overrules a line of questioning, they are not being biased. They are ruling procedurally

Schiff was clear why he wouldn’t allow it. They stated in the rules they would not out the WB

I feel like few of the major takeaways have really been discussed, instead it has mostly been bickering over the process.

Taylor today directly testified that his staffer overheard Trump reiterate to Sondland that his overarching concern with regards to Ukraine was the Biden's. Who got off the phone and reiterated that singular focus, and that Ukraine was ready to make good on the extortion(an extortion that seemingly was iced only because of the WB). He is going to have to testify to that and likely that staffer could testify as well. Leaving Sondland either having to lie under oath to defend the president, something he has not wanted to do so far, admit to the conversation, or claim executive privilege and leave the potential future staffer testimony to be the only on-record evidence of that exchange. One that takes away any notion that Trump was concerned about broader corruption in Ukraine.

All of which was contrasted with testimony that lays out clearly that corruption is not a singular organism in Ukraine and yet the only thing Rudy and Trump seemed concerned with was getting dirt on the Bidens and exonerating Russia/Manafort by ginning up conspiracies about his political rival's party in coordination with a discredited prosecutor that was caught on tape helping defendants fight corruption charges.

CoolBrees said:

Lots of problems in you post buddy.

Click to expand...

I think this is a problematic opening to a post, immediately setting up a hostile situation which is not productive or what we're going for on this board. Like Andrus, I'll leave it up for a bit so people know what we're trying to achieve.

CoolBrees said:

When a judge overrules a line of questioning, they are not being biased. They are ruling procedurally

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would think that the rulings of judges are never the product of bias.

I also want to point out at the same time these fools were badgering a true American patriot, they were screaming how secret the whole thing was. For a minority they sure like to have their way

st dude said:

The Republican defense that no offense occurred because aid was eventually given to Ukraine is like saying a bank robbery is not a crime if you give the money back or if you get caught breaking in and don't take it. .

The offense (or crime depending on your definition) happened when Trump delayed military aid to an ally in an attempt to gain a political advantage.

I do not mean to say this to insult anyone on here who supports President Trump, but you have truly have blinders on to not see, or pretend to not see, that Trump was putting the screws to Ukraine to investigate his political rival.

It is kind of sad for me to watch elected US legislators use word games and twist facts to defend actions they know in their heart are wrong.

Just because he got caught and then released the aid doesn't absolve Trump. Its sad that even needs to be pointed out.

Click to expand...

Schiff's closing pretty much summed it up.

The rest of what Welch said, other than his burn.