Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

I'm so disappointed. I don't think the obstruction of Congress will stick since Congress didn't work its way through the court. Abuse of Power, yes but I'm really disappointed in the Obstruction of Justice from the Mueller investigation getting dropped. I understand the logic, just don't agree with it.

This doesn't make sense. When Trump refused to respond to subpoenas, instructed others to do so, that was obstruction of Congress right there. The courts are not a part of that, although congress has been going to the court to try to force the administration to do what it's supposed to do.

It should definitely be an article of impeachment. And these are pretty similar to the Nixon articles of impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

I'm so disappointed. I don't think the obstruction of Congress will stick since Congress didn't work its way through the court. Abuse of Power, yes but I'm really disappointed in the Obstruction of Justice from the Mueller investigation getting dropped. I understand the logic, just don't agree with it.

This doesn't make sense. When Trump refused to respond to subpoenas, instructed others to do so, that was obstruction of Congress right there. The courts are not a part of that, although congress has been going to the court to try to force the administration to do what it's supposed to do.

It should definitely be an article of impeachment. And these are pretty similar to the Nixon articles of impeachment.

DP. It makes perfect sense....

Part of the problem for Congress is that it lacks a robust criminal enforcement mechanism. A recent Congressional Research Service report delineated the two ways in which Congress could pressure administration officials to respond to subpoenas: criminal contempt citations or civil enforcement.

Contempt citations for ignoring subpoenas are powerful in theory, but, problematically in this moment, they rely on the Justice Department for enforcement. In the past, administrations have simply declined to prosecute those found in contempt by Congress. Often, the refusals to comply with the subpoenas in the first place have been rooted in claims of executive privilege.

That’s an important concept. The short version is that administrations can refuse to provide information by claiming that doing so would reveal details of high-level decision-making that should remain protected. If challenged, the issue would come before a judge to determine whether the information being protected deserved to be shielded by privilege.

Even if the Justice Department did prosecute someone for contempt and obtain a conviction, the result would be a misdemeanor, as Randall Eliason, former assistant U.S. attorney for the District and an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School, explained to The Post last year.

The civil enforcement process jumps directly to the courts. Those refusing to comply with a subpoena could end up facing a daily fine until they comply. There would likely be no shortage of people willing to help cover those costs. Especially since the fines would likely only apply from the point at which the court finally ruled in the matter — rarely a quick process — until the subpoena potentially expired in early 2021.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/how-trump-congress-subpoena-fight-is-likely-play-out/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

Zelensky is not a "victim," he was a target. He still is, and he knows it. Trump is still president and Ukraine still depends on US aid, some of which Trump is STILL withholding. Zelensky is simply doing what is in the best interest of his country -- trying to not piss of a clearly unbalanced ally who holds the purse strings.

Send Trump packing permanently, and I bet Zelensky's story would change dramatically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

You can interpret it any way you like, but when it comes to obstruction of justice, Trump is dead to rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

There are hundreds of legal experts and scholars who agree that the President has committed impeachable offenses against the country, but I suppose you know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

It's all pretty clear. I'm sorry that you place no value on our country, on behaving in a at-least-somewhat-ethical manner.

My lifelong Republican father passed away 3 years ago. I mourn his loss but am happy that he didn't see what has become of his party.

[Anonymous]

My Republican father would have been horrified too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

Why are you quoting Castor when we all know he's lying?

Why are you quoting Zelensky when you know he can't say otherwise to protect the dignity of his office?

Just use your head, PP. It's perfectly honorable to be a conservative voter, and to seek politicians who will implement your conservative agenda.
It is NOT honorable to defend a bully and liar who abuses his power to further his own interests above those of his country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.

Zero facts have been disputed, despite the claim they were disputed. Just saying they were disputed doesn't make it so.

The GOP Senate will acquit the most corrupt president in History and the American public will see it for what it is.

Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed. Just because the line that "facts are undisputed" has polled well with Dems, doesn't make that statement true. Castor outlined how the "facts" are disputed in his testimony yesterday.

Stephen Castor's testimoni yesterday:

Overall at best, the impeachment inquiry record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculation. There are conflicting and ambiguous facts throughout the record. Facts that could be interpreted in different ways. To paraphrase Professor Turley from last week, the impeachment record is heavy on presumptions and empty on proof. That’s not me saying that, that is Professor Turley.

Let me start with the best direct evidence of any potential quid pro quo or impeachable scheme. This is President Trump’s phone call with Zelensky for which the National Security Council and the White House Situation Room staff prepared a call summary. According to testimony from Tim Morrison at the NSC, the summary was accurate and complete. NSC staff member Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Veneman testified that any omissions in the summary were not significant and that editing was not done maliciously. President Trump has declassified and released the call summary so the American people can review it and assess it for themselves.

Beyond the call summary, the next best piece of evidence are the statements from the two participants on the call. President Zelensky has said he felt no pressure on the call. On September 25th at the United Nations, he said, “We had I think a good phone call. It was normal. Nobody pushed me.” On October 6th President Zelensky said, “I was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed.” Four days later on October 10th, President Zelensky said again, “There’s nothing wrong with the call. No blackmail. This is not corruption. It was just a call.” Just recently in Time Magazine, President Zelensky said, “I never talked to the president from a position of a quid pro quo.” Because President Zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. He is in fact the supposed victim here.

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

You have your head in the sand and I think you know it. When Trump is ignoring subpoenas and making others do the same, tweeting about witnesses while they are testifying - THAT is obstruction of justice. You know this. You need to take a step back and look at everything Trump has been getting away with. Ask yourself how you would feel about it if a democrat was doing the same thing. Because everything he gets away with is a free pass for every politician down the road. Why on earth the republican party willing to throw this country away for a bankrupt reality tv star is beyond me. I get why the politicians are doing it - he’s clearly blackmailing them. But I have no idea why others are standing behind him. There are a lot of intelligent, dynamic republicans. Find them and raise them up. For the sake of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Republican father would have been horrified too.

I've also been thinking about my (deceased) Republican parents lately too - yes, horrified is how they would've felt too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

Agree.

Yep! This is only a small sampling of Trump’s wrongdoings. But these are extremely straightforward and indisputable. Let’s get him impeached and do our best to get him out of office. Then we can let the courts pick apart all his other crimes.

Speaking of courts...why do you think he is stacking the courts in his favor? If you think it’s to push the republican agenda then I have news for you. He couldn’t care less about the republican agenda. He will pretend to until he is re-elected, but he only cares about protecting his own interests. He’s not even a real republican. He just realized it’s a role he can play to get what he wants.

[Anonymous]

no one cares and has moved on except the Democrat congress.