Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

See, you're just regurgitating the party line without actually reading the McDonnell decision. That decision addressed bribery, that's true. But you failed to cite to this portion of Robert's opinion which clearly illustrates that what has been testified to vis-a-vis a meeting is actually bribery: bribery as a criminal activity can be found under the following 3 circumstances, with Trump clearly falling in to (2) below: (1) the taking of “a decision or action on a qualifying step” toward an official action; (2) the using of an “official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’”; and (3) the giving of “advice to another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ by another official.”

You might say that this is referring to U.S. officials and not foreign ones. If that's the case then the McDonnell decision is completely useless to you, because you're holding it up as a defense to bribing foreign officials.

As to your point #2: in a trial you sometime don't have the actual proof of the bossman giving the directions that his henchmen follow, but it's not too difficult based on the circumstantial evidence and NO CONTRARY TESTIMONY that that is exactly what happened. But if you're going to fall back on the old lemmings party line of having no direct proof, then you may as well follow that up with the other party line: the dems aren't allowed to examine under oath Guiliani, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and the others with first hand knowledge of exactly what happened because this is a witch hunt and so you can't have any testimony from this with first-hand knowledge nor can you have any of the underlying documents that will prove your allegations, because it's a witch hunt. Get it? There is no direct evidence because those with direct evidence are purposefully not testifying or providing the evidence because . . . Trump doesn't want them to.

your problem is that you have NO Proof- and you have the BOSSMAN on the phone -you have the transcript

BTW the video of Joe Biden doing exactly what you describe is exhibit A
exhibit B is any vote in the house of Representatives

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Obama didn't stand to benefit personally with improved Saudi relations. Trump desperately wants to build in SA - loads of money and no good taste. Same with Russia. Most likely he owes them a sh-it ton of money too. Once Trump has to hand over his financial documents we'll know for sure. Same with Russia.

idk about that...obama had his hands in alot of countries. and did quite well for himself. Ukrain was great $$$$ money for obamas and bidens.

[Unregistered]

I don't think it is ok. I didn't think it was ok when obama, bush, clinton and every other president defended SA. But that doesn't make him an agent of SA. And your condemnation of him is justified if you also condemn obama and all the other democrats for sucking up to SA. And further do you condemn obama for sucking up to the terrorist state of Iran?

If you don't look in the mirror and say I am a slave to the dems and have no independent thought.

Why do you need to condemn or hold harmless a country for what this individual did
the kingdom didnt authorize or condone this action- unless of course you have proof otherwise, then it is a state sponsored act of terrorism
we vetted this clown ,and did so poorly-we can and need to do a better job with that

you want to condemn a country for what one of its citizens did- start with Mexico- that crime spree dwarfs anything this clown did on that day alone

[Unregistered]

Obama didn't stand to benefit personally with improved Saudi relations. Trump desperately wants to build in SA - loads of money and no good taste. Same with Russia. Most likely he owes them a sh-it ton of money too. Once Trump has to hand over his financial documents we'll know for sure. Same with Russia.

really???, keeping us energy dependent on foreign oil (SAUDI OIL) you dont think there was a deal there
then in 3 short years we become a net exporter of oil- Trump didnt just find the oil or manufacture the oil or was he hiding the oil from Obama?

if the US Govt is doing something ,hell anything, there is a reason and someone is making cash off it

[Unregistered]

your problem is that you have NO Proof- and you have the BOSSMAN on the phone -you have the transcript

BTW the video of Joe Biden doing exactly what you describe is exhibit A
exhibit B is any vote in the house of Representatives

You really think Trump is stupid enough to say on a call listened to by a bunch of notetakers who won't throw away their notes (unlike his translators) that he won't give Ukraine $400 million unless Ukraine investigates his political rival or the democrats?

As for your Exhibit A, it not even remotely comparable. Biden said out in the open that the U.S. won't give Ukraine aid unless Ukraine fired its corrupt prosecutor (who was refusing to investigate Barisma), which was supported by the EU and Ukraine citizens who actually demonstrated to force Shokin's removal. Biden was announcing the official U.S. policy of the White House. Are you saying that official U.S. policy is not to provide aid to the Ukraine unless it investigates the Bidens or that ridiculous server story? You're comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

You're also completely sidestepping the fact that Trump is forbidding Giulliani, Barr, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify. Or provide incriminating documents? Why are you just ignoring this illegal conduct?

[Unregistered]

You really think Trump is stupid enough to say on a call listened to by a bunch of notetakers who won't throw away their notes (unlike his translators) that he won't give Ukraine $400 million unless Ukraine investigates his political rival or the democrats?

As for your Exhibit A, it not even remotely comparable. Biden said out in the open that the U.S. won't give Ukraine aid unless Ukraine fired its corrupt prosecutor (who was refusing to investigate Barisma), which was supported by the EU and Ukraine citizens who actually demonstrated to force Shokin's removal. Biden was announcing the official U.S. policy of the White House. Are you saying that official U.S. policy is not to provide aid to the Ukraine unless it investigates the Bidens or that ridiculous server story? You're comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

You're also completely sidestepping the fact that Trump is forbidding Giulliani, Barr, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify. Or provide incriminating documents? Why are you just ignoring this illegal conduct?

#1 so you admit he didn't incriminate himself on the call- your learning
#2 Biden said it after the fact- no aid unless you do this and here is the time limit- i think that hits 4 of your 3 criteria
#3 its called executive privilege and is a legal thing- If congress wants them to testify they need to go to court - its also called separation of powers-executive privilege is a power of the executive branch

MSNBC is making you dumber

[Unregistered]

nt

#1 so you admit he didn't incriminate himself on the call- your learning
#2 Biden said it after the fact- no aid unless you do this and here is the time limit- i think that hits 4 of your 3 criteria
#3 its called executive privilege and is a legal thing- If congress wants them to testify they need to go to court - its also called separation of powers-executive privilege is a power of the executive branch

MSNBC is making you dumber

#1 so you admit he didn't incriminate himself on the call- your learning --ACTUALLY, YOU ASKED IF THERE WAS DIRECT PROOF OF TRUMP TELLING UKRAINE ON THAT CALL THAT HE WOULD WITHHOLD AID IN RETURN FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND I SAID NO, HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT. BUT WHAT HE SAID WAS CLEARLY A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS WITHHOLDING AID UNTIL INVESTIGATIONS ARE ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY. THERE IS NO TESTIMONY THAT CONTRADICTS THAT TESTIMONY. NONE.

#2 Biden said it after the fact- no aid unless you do this and here is the time limit- i think that hits 4 of your 3 criteria -i DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. BIDEN WAS WITHHOLDING AID AS PART OF US OFFICIAL POLICY THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EU AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. TRUMP WAS SEEKING PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

#3 its called executive privilege and is a legal thing- If congress wants them to testify they need to go to court - its also called separation of powers-executive privilege is a power of the executive branch -- THAT'S NOT TRUE. THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER THE EMAILS, NOTES AND MEMO'S OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DEALING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE BUDGET OFFICE. IF WHAT YOU SAY IS THE LAW, THEN ANY TIME A PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT IS INVESTIGATED, THE PRESIDENT WILL JUST ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER EVERYTHING AND THEN WAIT FOR 2-3 YEARS UNTIL THE COURTS DECIDE.

[Unregistered]

You really think Trump is stupid enough to say on a call listened to by a bunch of notetakers who won't throw away their notes (unlike his translators) that he won't give Ukraine $400 million unless Ukraine investigates his political rival or the democrats?

As for your Exhibit A, it not even remotely comparable. Biden said out in the open that the U.S. won't give Ukraine aid unless Ukraine fired its corrupt prosecutor (who was refusing to investigate Barisma), which was supported by the EU and Ukraine citizens who actually demonstrated to force Shokin's removal. Biden was announcing the official U.S. policy of the White House. Are you saying that official U.S. policy is not to provide aid to the Ukraine unless it investigates the Bidens or that ridiculous server story? You're comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

You're also completely sidestepping the fact that Trump is forbidding Giulliani, Barr, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify. Or provide incriminating documents? Why are you just ignoring this illegal conduct?

Come on Snowflake? Who sets official US foreign Policy?

[Unregistered]

See, you're just regurgitating the party line without actually reading the McDonnell decision. That decision addressed bribery, that's true. But you failed to cite to this portion of Robert's opinion which clearly illustrates that what has been testified to vis-a-vis a meeting is actually bribery: bribery as a criminal activity can be found under the following 3 circumstances, with Trump clearly falling in to (2) below: (1) the taking of “a decision or action on a qualifying step” toward an official action; (2) the using of an “official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’”; and (3) the giving of “advice to another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ by another official.”

You might say that this is referring to U.S. officials and not foreign ones. If that's the case then the McDonnell decision is completely useless to you, because you're holding it up as a defense to bribing foreign officials.

As to your point #2: in a trial you sometime don't have the actual proof of the bossman giving the directions that his henchmen follow, but it's not too difficult based on the circumstantial evidence and NO CONTRARY TESTIMONY that that is exactly what happened. But if you're going to fall back on the old lemmings party line of having no direct proof, then you may as well follow that up with the other party line: the dems aren't allowed to examine under oath Guiliani, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and the others with first hand knowledge of exactly what happened because this is a witch hunt and so you can't have any testimony from this with first-hand knowledge nor can you have any of the underlying documents that will prove your allegations, because it's a witch hunt. Get it? There is no direct evidence because those with direct evidence are purposefully not testifying or providing the evidence because . . . Trump doesn't want them to.

Come on Snowflake. (2) the using of an “official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’” This doesn't apply at all. What would be the official act here that Trump exerted pressure on? The case was unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Besides Pelosi and her snowflake cohorts have already bagged the idea of adding Bribery as one of the articles of impeachment. They don't have a case for Bribery.

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

Come on Snowflake. (2) the using of an “official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’” This doesn't apply at all. What would be the official act here that Trump exerted pressure on? The case was unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Besides Pelosi and her snowflake cohorts have already bagged the idea of adding Bribery as one of the articles of impeachment. They don't have a case for Bribery.

So is there only case at this point hatred towards the POTUS?

[Unregistered]

So is there only case at this point hatred towards the POTUS?

It's pretty simple really. Let me try to make it very east for you to understand by replacing the words Trump with Obama:

1. Obama should be impeached because he used the office of the presidency to pressure Iran to announce phony investigations against Trump and Ivanka, and Obama (supposedly) agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for that public announcement on a Fox live interview. The evidence shows that that was about to happen until a whistle blower exposed the plot and Obama changed his mind and left the sanctions intact. In the meantime, Obama's personal lawyer, Eric Holder, was flying across the Middle East and meeting with Iranian officials to negotiate the lifting of the sanctions.

2. Obama should be impeached because when the republicans subpoenaed documents and testimony from the Obama administration to get sworn testimony of those government officials who have first-hand knowledge about the Obama plot, Obama stonewalled, didn't permit a single government official to testify and forbade every government agency from turning over any documents. Instead, less than a year before the elections, he invited the republicans to go to court and work their way through the appellate process so that the Supreme Court could hear the cases after the elections.


Perfectly fine, right? If any of this occurred the republicans would be out with their pitch forks and tiki torches burning down our country,.

[Unregistered]

it's pretty simple really. Let me try to make it very east for you to understand by replacing the words trump with obama:

1. Obama should be impeached because he used the office of the presidency to pressure iran to announce phony investigations against trump and ivanka, and obama (supposedly) agreed to lift sanctions on iran in exchange for that public announcement on a fox live interview. The evidence shows that that was about to happen until a whistle blower exposed the plot and obama changed his mind and left the sanctions intact. In the meantime, obama's personal lawyer, eric holder, was flying across the middle east and meeting with iranian officials to negotiate the lifting of the sanctions.

2. Obama should be impeached because when the republicans subpoenaed documents and testimony from the obama administration to get sworn testimony of those government officials who have first-hand knowledge about the obama plot, obama stonewalled, didn't permit a single government official to testify and forbade every government agency from turning over any documents. Instead, less than a year before the elections, he invited the republicans to go to court and work their way through the appellate process so that the supreme court could hear the cases after the elections.


Perfectly fine, right? If any of this occurred the republicans would be out with their pitch forks and tiki torches burning down our country,.

^^^^^^ 💯

[Unregistered]

So is there only case at this point hatred towards the POTUS?

Is that what you are hiding behind ?

Nope. The articles are very clear and will all get up watch the trial in the Senate and make our own conclusions based on the facts.

Don’t need your rush take.

IMPEACH!

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

It's pretty simple really. Let me try to make it very east for you to understand by replacing the words Trump with Obama:

1. Obama should be impeached because he used the office of the presidency to pressure Iran to announce phony investigations against Trump and Ivanka, and Obama (supposedly) agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for that public announcement on a Fox live interview. The evidence shows that that was about to happen until a whistle blower exposed the plot and Obama changed his mind and left the sanctions intact. In the meantime, Obama's personal lawyer, Eric Holder, was flying across the Middle East and meeting with Iranian officials to negotiate the lifting of the sanctions.

2. Obama should be impeached because when the republicans subpoenaed documents and testimony from the Obama administration to get sworn testimony of those government officials who have first-hand knowledge about the Obama plot, Obama stonewalled, didn't permit a single government official to testify and forbade every government agency from turning over any documents. Instead, less than a year before the elections, he invited the republicans to go to court and work their way through the appellate process so that the Supreme Court could hear the cases after the elections.


Perfectly fine, right? If any of this occurred the republicans would be out with their pitch forks and tiki torches burning down our country,.

wow, so i'm not the smartest guy around, but so what is the difference between what obama allegedly did and what TRUMP allegedly did?

[Unregistered]

wow, so i'm not the smartest guy around, but so what is the difference between what obama allegedly did and what TRUMP allegedly did?

Different poster and happy to take that on.

How many hours did HRC sit for questions by a House Oversight committee?

When did Obama refuse to provide ALL document and decline all
Cooperation with oversight ?

Chaffetz and gowdy and all would have been happy to impeach but they couldn’t find ANYTHING they could make stick to the cleanest administration EVAH.

So please 😢 more little ❄️