VOX 9 questions about Trump’s impeachment trial you were too embarrassed to ask
FOX House transmits Trump impeachment articles to Senate, paving way for historic trial
FOX GOP Fights to Call Irrelevant Witnesses (those who have no information regarding what Trump and his personnel did with regard to Ukraine or why they did it)
NYT Documents Provide New Details of Trump’s Pressure Campaign on Ukraine
Well let's hope our Senators all start looking for the truth and start to leave politics out of it...
I can not think of any reason why any citizen would not want to hear from all relevant public servants? I mean they work for us... Right?
FOX House transmits Trump impeachment articles to Senate, paving way for historic trial
FOX GOP Fights to Call Irrelevant Witnesses (those who have no information regarding what Trump and his personnel did with regard to Ukraine or why they did it)
NYT Documents Provide New Details of Trump’s Pressure Campaign on Ukraine
Well let's hope our Senators all start looking for the truth and start to leave politics out of it...
I can not think of any reason why any citizen would not want to hear from all relevant public servants? I mean they work for us... Right?
Impeachment descends into darkness
ReplyDeleteIt simply does not make sense to allow evidence of Trump's guilt of high crimes and misdemeanors would only serve to undermine his presidency if the intention is to acquit him anyway.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
It simply makes no sense to accuse Trump of a "quid pro quo" that did not exist, for the purposes of "seeking dirt" on a political opponent, when said "opponent" has OPENLY ADMITTED to the corruption the President has an official duty, and under treaty, to request the investigation thereof, EVEN THOUGH said investigation did not happen. No quid, no pro, no bribery, no extortion, no nothing. Seems the first witness to be called ought to be either Joe or Hunter, to prove the charges are groundless, and strictly a proper exercise of Presidential authority. Give it up!
ReplyDeleteThe Investigation started without authorization, and when Congress voted to start it, it was a partisan vote. The articles were voted out of committee on a party line vote, and out of Congress on a party line vote, and sent to the Senate on a party line vote. Is there anything whatsoever that would tell you this is legitimate, rather than a pure political witch hunt by Democrats?
It simply makes no sense to accuse Trump of a "quid pro quo" that did not exist.
ReplyDeleteBut of course it does exist.
--Hiram
HIram, if it does, which in Ukraine it does not, it is the normal way in which foreign policy is conducted-- our aid in exchange for ____.
ReplyDeleteWhat goes in the blank. "interference in domestic election"
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most convincing about this matter is the sheer stupidity of it. No one believes that Ukraine seriously interfered in the American election besides our Donald. No one believes his lies on the subject because his lies were so implausible it's almost as if their issuer didn't intend them to be believed.
--Hiram
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, I was worried that you may have died... :-(
Now remember Trump's logic and the timeline.
The GOP story goes that Trump withheld the money to ensure that it would not be misspent by a corrupt system. Even though the US Military had conducted a thorough review and approved their plans and systems.
So to accomplish this review of current systems, Trump demanded a review of things that happened 4 years ago when Ukraine had a totally different President and Government...
The logic gap is so big that one could drive a truck through it...
And Pelosi's stall seems to be having some wonderful benefits as more evidence comes out daily. :-)
ReplyDeleteWell, if the Senate does not do a thorough job...
ReplyDeleteI guess the House can always impeach him again with the new information... :-)
Trump has drained away our ability to hold him accountable
ReplyDelete“Flood the zone with shit”: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy
Interesting links...
ReplyDelete