I threw it out there because unfortunately some of these wild conspiracies that were being thrown out by the GOP regarding the FISA stuff actually sticks. And the next conspiracy that's being floated ties Brennan to it. It would be easy to settle if the WB were deposed and both sides had representation. He doesn't have to testify in person. If the WB weren't CIA, I wouldn't have floated that hypothetical. In the end, I think most everything will be swept under the rug and kept from the public. Trump won't be re-elected (doesn't bother me a bit). And HOPEFULLY, both parties and all the agencies involved learn a lesson.
And I've been saying I think it's debatable what Trump was trying to accomplish given that he had been ****ed with by the FBI & DOJ and then investigated for 3 years. Not once has there been anything that ties his intent to the 2020 elections EXCEPT what the left/media narrates. You might say a reasonable person would conclude that, and I don't disagree. I'm saying there is enough context available then and now to understand the intent. I mean his bro, Rudy, is in his ear telling him about all of the democrat corruption etc etc. I think he believes Rudy. Any reasonable person would probably conclude the same: He believes what he's being told by Rudy. And if you can conclude that, it's easy to draw a conclusion on his intent. Revenge? Yes. Root out corruption (per Rudy)? Yes. Does it matter if JoeB is running? Not to me IF there is sufficient evidence. It obviously matters to others.
Trump and Mulvaney literally admitted to it on TV but apparently if they say it under oath it will mean more.... Or maybe it won’t matter unless we have Trump with the murder weapon in one hand and a confession letter in the other. I agree, it’s pretty clear what happened but it’s not enough for some reason.
Stop being a Tulsi and Hannity.... So he believed another disgraced lawyer with money problems and he sent him in secret to Ukraine instead of a transparent investigation... listen to yourself. It’s very clear your intentions here. Classic Tulsi.
Trump on the stand would be awesome. I'd call in sick that day for sure. I'd love to see him twee I'm referring to Rudy telling Trump, which is what I'm assuming happened. Rudy claims to have it. Do I believe he has it? I don't know, really. The question really is, did Trump believe it, which I assume is yes. So I guess it might come down to this: What do you do about a president who was ill informed (assuming Rudy doesn't have jack..) and was honestly wanting to investigate the corruption he was told about? Is that a reason to remove him? Impeachment doesn't include bad judgement.
OMB was ready to blame DoD. Lol Duffey, adding OMB and Pentagon lawyers to the recipients list, and in a formal and lengthy letter that was quite different from the way he’d addressed McCusker all summer, chastised her and the Defense Department for dropping the ball, saying that if and when the hold is lifted, and DOD finds itself unable to obligate the funding, it would be DOD’s fault. “As you know, the President wanted a policy process run to determine the best use of these funds, and he specifically mentioned this to the SecDef the previous week. OMB developed a footnote authorizing DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds. If you have not taken these steps, that is contrary to OMB’s direction and was your decision not to proceed. If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD’s decision that cause any impoundment of funds.” Essentially: You guys screwed up. Not us. McCusker responded: “You can’t be serious. I am speechless.” This exchange, as well as the larger trove of unredacted emails, raises new questions about the Dec. 11 letter from OMB General Counsel Paoletta to the General Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional investigative office. The unredacted emails show the Pentagon’s repeated and clear warnings to OMB that by mid-August it could no longer guarantee that the funds could be fully executed within the fiscal year. But, Paoletta’s letter stated, “at no point during the pause in obligations did DOD [Office of General Counsel] indicate to OMB that, as a matter of law, the apportionments would prevent DOD from being able to obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year.”
I don't really follow Tulsi or Hannity so I don't get the insult. I'll just take it that's along the lines of being a jackass or worse. No offense taken. Why do you have a hard time thinking Trump believed Rudy? He sent him there. This is Trump we are talking about.
It doesn’t matter if Trump believed Rudy or not, his actions that followed are what’s important. Why do you think the reverse is more important? It’s come off as trying to minimize Trump’s poor judgement.
You can't be impeached for poor judgement. The narrative that Trump called for investigations to impact the 2020 elections ("dig up dirt") is why we are where we are.
LOL... besides, the Articles of Impeachment were adopted on December 17 and the House of Representatives (including rep. hawley) went on recess on December 19 (until Tuesday, January 7).
It is poor judgement to abuse executive power and obstruct.... Again.... His actions are what is important.... and his actions are what got him here.
And here we are: Coming into the 4th year of investigations, accusations and a partisan impeachment. There's enough blame to go around on both sides. Don't you think? I blame Newt Gingrich. The way the republicans went after Clinton set the tone for the atmosphere we have now. Trump's tweets certainly don't help and the biased media really helps stir it up. If the Dems win in 2020, I sincerely hope the repubs lay off and try to come back to civility. Hopefully, the word impeachment doesn't come up the first week in office.
You have an awfully charitable presumption about how all of this went down. And, you seem to have a pretty narrow scope on the rationalization as well. Even if you were right that Rudy G convinced him there really was evidence of Biden being corrupt but the Deep State inside Wray's FBI won't let him get it, it still doesn't explain all the other fishy stuff going on. Like why he chose to have an unconfirmed, unappointed, unelected private lawyer conducting State Dept business. Why he would ask a foreign country with a reputation for corruption to handle any investigation of any importance. I would think, when one saw all of the adjacent unorthodox behaviors, it might get your antennae up a little to say, 'well maybe I should regard his behavior with a little skepticism.' But, apparently no.
What about stealing from Cancerous children in his fraud settlement for his fake charity? Or his fake university? I mean those are crimes he admitted to.....are those impeachable? DD
I don't know the answer to that. If you think about it, anything or anyone is impeachable. The question becomes is it enough to remove him from office. Clinton lied under oath and tampered with a witness. I think those were both proven to be true. I'm not positive on the 2nd offense, so correct me if I'm wrong. Both of those crimes would have me jailed for years with a shitload of probation, fines and probably some community service. I think they are both felonies, no? I really don't know much about the charity fraud or the fake university. I'll do a google search in a sec. It certainly doesn't sound very moral. Edit: Why can't they impeach him based on the Charities Fraud case? He pleaded guilty. And he used the money for campaign purposes. I can get behind this as a reason. Has there been a reason put forth as to why the dems aren't pursuing this?
Majority of Americans support impeachment, removal from office. A majority of Americans, including 40% of republicans, support more witnesses in senate trial. JAN. 3, 2020, AT 6:00 AM Our Poll Finds A Majority Of Americans Think The Evidence Supports Trump’s Removal https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...supports-trumps-removal/?ex_cid=story-twitter
