Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I guess if you call coddling dictators and alienating allies the practice of foreign policy, you could describe it as "happening well".

Are you worried about the foreign policy of the United States, is there a particular "alienated ally" you are worried about?

[Slip]

3 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

wow what a legal eagle!

 

a bribe is something extraneous that is given to grease the wheels.

 

Ukraine was already entitled to the money....they weren't aware of any holdups....while 

the Trump admin vetted the new admin's claims of taking an anti-corruption stance.

The aid flowed freely once the vetting was complete. Standard procedure.

 

Nothing impeachable here. Just a sad process to vilify a sitting president who the Dems

fear in an election.

 

 

The recent conviction of crook Stone on all counts should make people like you sit up and listen.  In the U.S. no one should be above the law, even if you personally happen to like their nasty politics.

[metisdead]

A post containing insulting comments to another member has been removed. 

[candide]

3 hours ago, Opl said:

The Whistleblower Complaint Timeline

some of the key dates in the fast-moving, still-unfolding story.

Thank you for this link. It is a well documented article recalling the main events we know so far. There are also links to articles providing details about the main events.

I advise members who are fact-oriented (????) to read it too.

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Attempting to concoct the word 'bribery' after running focus groups to see which term the public will

understand readily is a desperate move. No one's buying it. No one sees bribery except Adam Schiff and his minions...

Oh, plenty of people see bribery. And they're certainly not all Democrats or "minions" of Adam Schiff.

 

For instance, the pre-eminent legal expert on Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano, sees it as bribery.

 

Quote

The proof is largely undisputed, except by the president himself. It consists of admissions, testimony and documents, which show that Trump sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2020 presidential election.

 

Specifically, Trump held up $391 million in American military hardware and financial aid to Ukraine – which is at war with Russia after the Russian seizure and continual occupation of what was until 2014 a Ukrainian province – until Ukrainian prosecutors commenced a criminal investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

 

That is a mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound. Whether one agrees with federal law or not, it is a crime to solicit assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government. As well, the crime of bribery consists of a government official refraining from performing a legal duty until a thing of value is delivered to him.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight

Incidentally, as he also points out in another article, it's not just the edited summary of the phone call (which is not a transcript) but the cumulative evidence of:

Quote

"months of negotiations between American and Ukrainian diplomats [that shows] Trump made it known that if the Ukrainian government wanted the $391 million in military and financial aid that Congress authorized and ordered, it first must offer, or announce that it was seeking, dirt on his likely 2020 political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter.

 

 

Too many people are concentrating on the phone call alone and I agree that on its own, it's perhaps not sufficiently definitive (though we know there are parts missing) - but as he correctly mentions, that call has to be taken together with all the other evidence and testimony regarding the various communications and efforts by Sondland, Giuliani etc, stretching back over a period of months, to get the full picture.

[atyclb]

23 hours ago, sirineou said:

On 11/15/2019 at 6:21 PM, Thainesss said:

 

She looks like a drunk person talking through dentures that aren't glued in. 

 

 

 I agree not eloquent  like trump at all 

 

lol agree.  imo uneloquent is the term.  although both are defined by degrees of uneloquence i'd say pelosi takes the cake

[Slickrick]

I thought Pelosi knew what she was doing, didn't learn anything in 1998.  They can use any word of the day they want trying to make something, anything stick.  Witnesses with second, third hand knowledge, please.  This show run by the Dems is a joke and they will pay the price next year.  

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Slickrick said:

I thought Pelosi knew what she was doing, didn't learn anything in 1998.  They can use any word of the day they want trying to make something, anything stick.  Witnesses with second, third hand knowledge, please.  This show run by the Dems is a joke and they will pay the price next year.  

Lol. Ask Trump to allow more first hand witnesses to testify then.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Slickrick said:

I thought Pelosi knew what she was doing, didn't learn anything in 1998.  They can use any word of the day they want trying to make something, anything stick.  Witnesses with second, third hand knowledge, please.

 I agree, Holding the white house the senate and the house is a tough gig but we are willing to pay the price.

Stay tooned for first hand knowledge.

New witness claims first-hand account of Trump's push for Ukraine probes

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/470761-new-witness-claims-first-hand-account-of-trumps-push-for-ukraine-probes

[ricklev]

To all you posters saying there is something wrong with the process or the proof is second hand or inadequate I am genuinely curious, why not just agree that he did it and that you don't care because you like him?  There is nothing wrong with that. It seems like it would be uncomfortable to accept the lies of others, and lie to yourself and others about it.  Isn't it?  No offense intended.  ????

[Jingthing]

52 minutes ago, Slickrick said:

I thought Pelosi knew what she was doing, didn't learn anything in 1998.  They can use any word of the day they want trying to make something, anything stick.  Witnesses with second, third hand knowledge, please.  This show run by the Dems is a joke and they will pay the price next year.  

No joke. Hit just got real. 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[earlinclaifornia]

On 11/15/2019 at 9:40 AM, WalkingOrders said:

Wrong. The idea that Trump is guilty of Bribery is nothing but more leftist semantics. This entire Dog N Pony show is nothing more then the last ditch effort of a Democrat party about to be crushed under the weight of indictments. In this particular instance of the conspiracy to remove the President its cover for the Joe Biden crime family. The VP made $210k a year, but his son Hunter was paid about $1.5 million to sit on a board of Ukranian Burisma simply to be the bagman for the money. The same son who repeated this game with Chinese money. The same son who less then one year before Burisma was booted out of the United States Naval Reserve Officer program for testing positive for Cocaine. The biggest scandal in US history - and they want to impeach a President? The same Dem party that accused the Pres of being a Russian spy? Anyone who thinks that Trump will be Impeached by these crooked clowns is nuts!  I'll take All bets!

Oh yes he WILL be impeached but likely not have been convicted. However, I truely believe that the cost result will be the Senate. Meet me back here after election to see who gets to gloat.

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Oh yes he WILL be impeached but likely not have been convicted. However, I truely believe that the cost result will be the Senate. Meet me back here after election to see who gets to gloat.

I agree , you would think that after what happened to them in the House, they would have learned something.

 

[bristolboy]

On 11/16/2019 at 6:43 PM, Slickrick said:

I thought Pelosi knew what she was doing, didn't learn anything in 1998.  They can use any word of the day they want trying to make something, anything stick.  Witnesses with second, third hand knowledge, please.  This show run by the Dems is a joke and they will pay the price next year.  

Yes, we've seen in recent state elections just how upset with the Democrats the voting public is.

Suburbs swing hard to Democrats in state contests

https://news.yahoo.com/2019-election-results-suburbs-kentucky-pennsylvania-virginia-trump-185748675.html

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:11 PM, Skallywag said:

Read the articles of impeachment.  It is about withholding promised military aid to the Ukraine. 

Anti- tank missiles to stave of Russian forces has nothing to do with voter corruption or the DNC. 

What Articles of Impeachment? There are none. However, pretending that the Democrats have drawn up Articles of Impeachment and made the decision to actually charge and send ot the Senate, a President deciding on his own perogative to withold temporarily aid - because he is unsure of a new administration in Ukraine, or wants to ensure that corruption is indeed being handled, even with DOD certifcation, is not a crime in any way shape or form. OK and now back to "Read the Articles of Impeachment" the democrats are still calling it an inquiry. Meaning they have not decided to Impeach. Is that clear? And the fake BS case is slipping away minute by minute. At this point I don't think they can even get enough democrat votes.

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/15/2019 at 5:15 PM, Sujo said:

Trying to find just 1 true point in that post and its a difficult task.

 

Care to post a link from your previous assertion hunter biden got 1.5 billion from china.

 

I can help you out. He received nothing.

Start with the first point I made and dispute it. You can't

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/16/2019 at 1:02 PM, Mavideol said:

such as official reason to dismiss a public official, a veteran that worked 33 years for the US government....

The President can hire and fire at will. That is his perogative as the Chief Executive of the United States of America. It's been happening just like that for over 200 years. Yes I am for real. Yes I understand US and Ukraine politics, and policy, and I despise the current policy, for many reasons unrelated to this. Rudy Guliani is known as cleaning up corruption in NYC and is widely considered to be the toughest prosecutor and mayor the City has ever had - not affiliated with the Mafia as you say - a statement made with no factual basis. This entire dog and pony show of the Democrats is already falling apart. So far nothing but the testimony of disgruntled bureaucrats who are unhappy with the President's actions on Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is the President of the United States that decides policy - even if he is going against long standing US policy. When they don't like it the honorable thing to do is to resign, or ask to be reassigned. Honestly, right now, I am not sure if the Democrats will have enough votes to pass Articles of Impeachment and send them to the Senate. Currently they are a long long way from even deciding what exactly they are going to charge the President with. And Bribery? That aint gonna happen. 

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/16/2019 at 6:10 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

For instance, the pre-eminent legal expert on Fox News, Judge Andrew Napolitano, sees it as bribery.

Who told you that Judge Napolitano is the pre-eminent legal expert on Fox news? 

[bristolboy]

This is a true case of hypocrity. I refer you to post #

 

46 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Start with the first point I made and dispute it. You can't

Such a hypocrite. I posted detailed answers to questions you asked and here's how you replied in post #346:

"You lie repeatedly in this post. Your characterizations of events likewise false. Time will tell which one of us is telling the truth."

So why should anyone bother with you when you just call answers lies that undermine what you assert?

And your answer didn't even make sense. Since you asked questions about things that happened in the past. How does it work that the future modifies the past?

 

[WalkingOrders]

17 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Oh yes he WILL be impeached but likely not have been convicted. However, I truely believe that the cost result will be the Senate. Meet me back here after election to see who gets to gloat.

I will see you then.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 11/15/2019 at 5:10 PM, WalkingOrders said:

"The unlikely event" So let's just break it down. Biden's son, less then one year previous is booted from a commission in the United States Naval Reserve Officer Program for testing positive for cocaine. A program Daddy had pushed for him to get into because he was too old for the program. Less then one year later, he follows Daddy to Ukraine, as US Policy is asking Ukraine to up the volume on gas production, his son joins the firm of a guy who has been giving himself oil and gas exploration and production contracts illegally. And Hunter Biden, no experience in gas&Oil, no experience in Ukraine now sits on the board and begins to collect $85,000.00 USD a month from the Poor Ukraine. When a new Ukraine prosecutor begins to investigate the firm, Daddy Joe Biden VP, goes to Ukraine and ORDERS them to fire the Prosecutor or funds will be held. Incidentally, the Obama admin gave squat to Ukraine, it was Trump who game them arms. So you read all this and have the nerve to say in the "Unlikely event" . It is literally the most egregious corruption case I have ever seen in my life. Seriously, you don't see it? All politics aside you don't see it?  In China, the case with Biden is even far more uglier. I could go into this for hours man.

The Republicans did an excellent job today laying out the sterling career service, unquestionable access to the events, and credibility of their witness Kurt Volker.

 

Kurt Volker, under oath and in front of the nation tore the idea of the whole basis of the fake ‘Biden scandal’ apart and then explained it for what it is, an inappropriate use of the power of the Presidency to get a foreign nation drum up a fake investigation into fake allegations against the Bidens.

 

Your opinions are noted for what they are, talking points doing the rounds of the rabid right.

 

They are being exposed as utter nonsense by sworn testimony from the Republican’s own witnesses before the nation.

 

This fakery you’ve swallowed, give it all ready.

 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

22 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Who told you that Judge Napolitano is the pre-eminent legal expert on Fox news? 

The facts show this quite clearly. He has more experience as an attorney and judge and had held higher judicial office than any other Fox News legal analyst. He has also been a law professor for over 20 years and is still a practicing attorney.

 

None of the other Fox News legal analysts come anywhere near to matching his legal credentials. 

[Scott]

Questionable post and replies removed.  

 

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/21/2019 at 11:32 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

The facts show this quite clearly. He has more experience as an attorney and judge and had held higher judicial office than any other Fox News legal analyst. He has also been a law professor for over 20 years and is still a practicing attorney.

 

None of the other Fox News legal analysts come anywhere near to matching his legal credentials. 

I stand corrected. And in light of that here is a recent interview where he discusses the impeachment process. I suggest watching all the way through:

 

[Kelsall]

On 11/19/2019 at 7:39 PM, earlinclaifornia said:

Oh yes he WILL be impeached but likely not have been convicted. However, I truely believe that the cost result will be the Senate. Meet me back here after election to see who gets to gloat.

He will NOT be impeached.  Schiff is backpedaling and a key Dem is bailing and asking others to follow. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

He will NOT be impeached.  Schiff is backpedaling and a key Dem is bailing and asking others to follow. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure

 

Keep up with the news

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-again-now-supports-it-after-saying-it-had-no-value

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/16/2019 at 7:28 PM, spidermike007 said:

I guess if you call coddling dictators and alienating allies the practice of foreign policy, you could describe it as "happening well".

LOL. That's what American governments do. They reportedly even facilitated the removal of a democratically elected leader in South America so a dictator could take over. BTW, that was long before Trump was involved in politics.

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/20/2019 at 2:04 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

The Republicans did an excellent job today laying out the sterling career service, unquestionable access to the events, and credibility of their witness Kurt Volker.

 

Kurt Volker, under oath and in front of the nation tore the idea of the whole basis of the fake ‘Biden scandal’ apart and then explained it for what it is, an inappropriate use of the power of the Presidency to get a foreign nation drum up a fake investigation into fake allegations against the Bidens.

 

Your opinions are noted for what they are, talking points doing the rounds of the rabid right.

 

They are being exposed as utter nonsense by sworn testimony from the Republican’s own witnesses before the nation.

 

This fakery you’ve swallowed, give it all ready.

 

 

 

You characterize the testimony of Kurt Volker. How do I argue if your characterization is true or false? 

 

"He tore the idea of the whole basis of the fake "biden scandal" apart and then explained it for what it is".

 

That is simply your characterization of the testimony. 

 

"Fake allegations."

 

The allegations themselves can't be fake. You either have an allegation or you don't. Here let me show you : Hunter Biden had zero experience in Ukraine is that true or false? Hunter Biden had zero experience in the gas industry, is that true or false? Hunter Biden made well over $50,000 USD per month from being on that board. True or False. This happened at the same time that Burisma was being looked at for corruption from within Ukraine. True or False? Hunter Biden less then one year previous to being put on the board, had tested postive for cocaine in the United States Naval Reserve, and was removed and was therefore denied his Officer Commission. Yet he is put on a Ukraine Board to do what? Collect money!

 

Now the allegation there is that this is corruption.The Allegation is not false. From the above it seems like this should at least be investigated. As I have never seen anything like this ever, nothing even comes close, I try to stretch, and think back, over all the Presidential administrations I can remember, Do I remember any kind "APPEARANCE" of financial graft as this? No I don't.  Now that is simply my own truth, if you can recall other examples that dwarf this- please do point them out. 

 

It may be OK to you, but it's NOT OK to me. I don't even see the need for an investigation, as I can see it all right in front of me. But an investigation is neccessarry to bring the proper charges. If no charges are brought I see it as an indictment of the Justice system of the USA. But that last bit of course is my characterization - which of course is just a characterization and cannot be proven true or false, as its only an opinion.