[talaniman]

In what insane world would you question Vindman's word, and believe a lying cheating dufus? Yeah the Dow at 28,000 means a lot to the half the country with a vested interest in it, but the rest of the country...not so much.

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: All I am saying is "Look before you leap!"....What makes Vinmans's word pure as the wind driven snow? He is a known Biden supporter, to boot, so he "COULD" be prejudiced (we don't know that he is, however)…….But, we should not just take anyone's word on anything.

Bill Clinton was a convicted LIAR IN CHIEF: CONVICTED! But many people hang onto all words he spews forth...they say his lying in that instance doesn't count.....This stuff is tricky: If YOUR HORSE LIES, it might be O.K. with you....if the other guy's horse lies, ITS HORRIBLE!

It does appear that LIES are becoming more accepted in the U.S.....this has been widely accepted in the rest of the world for some time....looks like the U.S. is catching up to the rest of the world....and catching up in a way that is A NEGATIVE, NOT A POSITIVE!

Like I said before: IF TRUMP CAN BE PROVEN TO LIE, THAT HE DID THE THINGS HE IS ACCUSED OF, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, HIS ARSE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!

[talaniman]

I agree and that's the point of this whole exercise, for the House to determine if there is a case to be made to the Senate. Frankly I read the Mueller Report, and saw his testimony and his case was made in my opinion, despite popular opinion that it was not, but we'll see.

You have to admit Muller caught a lot of the dufus campaign folks dirty. Possibly more to come.

[jlisenbe]

This is the only really pertinent paragraph of his testimony.

I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for
6
the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a
partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan
support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.
Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.

Now first of all, no one needs his testimony since the President has released the transcript of the phone call he refers to. Also note that there is not so much as a slight suggestion that a crime had been committed. No suggestion of bribery, extortion, or the famous "quid pro quo" was even hinted at.

So you still need five names.

[talaniman]

You can pull up testimonies of ALL the witnesses so far just as I did, and critique them all you want, since that's what you intend to do any way. To your critique at hand though, Vindman saw something of credible concern and reported it as is his job, and he was a first hand witness. I will also submit that the released transcript of that call was suspicious since he did reference an action that could be construed as totally inappropriate without the formal process of going through the DOJ instead, which was the case with all the witnesses.

Of course you can ignore the implications of calling on a foreign nation to investigate an American, and a possible political opponent, and calling for an investigation that implicates the opposing party, and clears Russia of interference after EVERYBODY has pegged them as behind a cyber attack to aid the dufus, even after the conviction of Roger Stone by Mueller's team drawing a direct line to those same Russian hacks through wiki leaks.

Then we have Rudy and his boys and a case is forming there too, so while we haven't yet arrived at formal charges against the dufus, a case is certainly building after one week and three witnesses, which they all have agreed there is some highly irregular and suspicious behavior going on, and quite possibly criminal. That's the whole point of the inquiry. Of course you think you can judge the outcome before we arrive at a conclusion but I suggest you hold off until Williams, Sondland, Volker, and Morrison have testified this week.

No doubt there will be a lot more to follow, and we will see who runs out of excuses first.

[jlisenbe]

It just comes down to this. So far as I can tell, no one has witnessed a crime. They have some gripes, and the gripes might be legit, but there is no direct evidence of a crime. As to the Ukes investigating HB, it should be investigated. It has the smell of a conflict of interest with his dad being the VP. That might very well turn out to be the real criminal conduct in this whole mess.

[paraclete]

Just another futile debate, evidence of something but who knows what

[talaniman]

So where is the formal complaint from DOJ to the Ukraine government requesting such an inquiry. For that matter where is the dufus's formal request to the congress notifying them of funds being with held from Ukraine? Can you nnot see that going around the processes in place is highly suspicious, for what appears to be to give the dufus talking points for his re election campaign. Why did he have to smear the ambassador while removing her from her post as all we have is Rudy's words and actions and letters from a retired congressman who took money from Rudy's henchmen?

Of course none of that gives repubs or you, pause that something may not be right about what the dufus is doing, or how he has done it. That's okay we are going to look at it, and rightfully so.

Just another futile debate, evidence of something but who knows what

Not a debate, but INQUIRY. Big difference. I will point out that the dufus isn't letting key first hand witnesses testify and it would seem they could clear this whole thing up with their testimony, or the dufus could testify himself as Clinton did.

That don't look good but if he were my client I wouldn't let him answer questions under oath either.

[paraclete]

Don't you think there is just too much interference in the conduct of government? What is the point of electing a government if all you are going to do is bicker about it and with it?

[talaniman]

Clete we have 3 equal branches of government. Each with defined powers they get to exercise. Obviously we do more than just bicker, as anybody else you can think of that influences the whole world the way we have?

[jlisenbe]

For that matter where is the dufus's formal request to the congress notifying them of funds being with held from Ukraine? Can you nnot see that going around the processes in place is highly suspicious, for what appears to be to give the dufus talking points for his re election campaign. Why did he have to smear the ambassador while removing her from her post as all we have is Rudy's words and actions and letters from a retired congressman who took money from Rudy's henchmen?

You don't like it. I get that, but there is no evidence of a crime that would warrant removing a duly elected president. A year from now is the time for you to make your move if you can with Warren, Sanders, Biden, or whoever you come up with.

Clete we have 3 equal branches of government. Each with defined powers they get to exercise. Obviously we do more than just bicker, as anybody else you can think of that influences the whole world the way we have?

Once again we basically agree. This is getting a little scary.

[talaniman]

Wonder why the founders even bothered putting impeachment into the constitution if we could just wait for the next election? You don't need evidence to investigate, just enough circumstances for probable cause and with 13 witnesses who work for the government I would say that bar has been established. We still have that Mueller Report nobody read, and his conviction rate stemming from it.

If HC can go into an election under cloud of investigation I suppose the dufus can too. I think there was plenty of probable cause to investigate the dufus before his latest antics that led to the current inquiry. LOL, it might even turn out the dufus's head will be the only one that rolls when it's all said and done.

[paraclete]

Wonder why the founders even bothered putting impeachment into the constitution if we could just wait for the next election? You don't need evidence to investigate, just enough circumstances for probable cause and with 13 witnesses who work for the government I would say that bar has been established. We still have that Mueller Report nobody read, and his conviction rate stemming from it.

If HC can go into an election under cloud of investigation I suppose the dufus can too. I think there was plenty of probable cause to investigate the dufus before his latest antics that led to the current inquiry. LOL, it might even turn out the dufus's head will be the only one that rolls when it's all said and done.

Obviously, in those days, there were some profoundly corrupt people, as distinct from today, of course. But the founders were well aware of the human condition as no doubt malfeasance was as prevalent as it is now. This, of course, was obvious in the case of BC, HC and I wonder what Trump will produce

[jlisenbe]

Wonder why the founders even bothered putting impeachment into the constitution if we could just wait for the next election?

Not because you simply don't like the guy, but for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

You don't need evidence to investigate, just enough circumstances for probable cause and with 13 witnesses who work for the government I would say that bar has been established. We still have that Mueller Report nobody read, and his conviction rate stemming from it.

You've got nothing. Nearly every ounce of supposed testimony that has been presented would never be allowed for two seconds in a court of law. "Hearsay" and "relevance" would be the two objections, and they would be upheld even with Obama appointed judges. And bear in mind that both Trump and the Uke pres say that there was no agreement between the two of them. Even worse for the dems, the military aid was delivered and no investigation took place. So aside from a bunch of disgruntled people, as the old commercial said, "Where's the beef?"

I asked for five names. I haven't even seen one who has testimony that has a direct bearing on these allegations.

[talaniman]

LOL, it's a LAWFUL congressional inquiry, not a court of law for one thing, so hearsay being admissible or not is irrelevant at this stage, but not surprising you don't know that as repubs and you think it's okay for the dufus to ask a foreign government to investigate his political foes with a formal process that starts with a request by the DOJ, and not the dufus's private attorney. To date, Barr has not done so.

Wonder why? Or why Rudy holds so much sway over policy and personnel in the Ukraine and is he making money from it (Dumb question, of course he is!)?

[jlisenbe]

so hearsay being admissible or not is irrelevant at this stage

Irrelevant only to those who are interested in political revenge rather than true justice. Same stupid thing that happened to Kavanaugh. I'm almost to the point of hoping it someday happens to all the liberal dems who stand by and applaud these unethical circuses.

[talaniman]

WOW, I feel the same about you loony right wingers and you're support of a lying, cheating, bully who can do no wrong in your eyes. I think the real difference is can the dems make their case, or will they be as incompetent as repubs are. LOL, that's funny that you think we are unethical when you have a dufus you support.

What's even funnier is neither you or repubs can make an argument on the substance, but resort to partisan assumptions to deflect, distract, and dismiss facts you don't like. We may as well just go watch Australia burn.

[Vacuum7]

Hamilton was the "author" of the IMPEACHMENT comments in the Federalist Papers.....Hamilton clearly stated that IMPEACHMENT has to be associated with "clear abuse of public trust".....What really made Hamilton "go mad" was trying to ensure that the IMPEACHMENT PROCESS was not abused or used as a means of the illegitimate upending an elected of a duly elected President. This is where it all gets kind of hairy because many say that the constitutional legitimacy to Impeach can easily be violated without much in the way of any cross-check of its legitimacy.

[Athos]

Witnesses (some first-hand) who testified that Trump offered release of military aid in return for Pres Z announcing the start of an investigation into Biden. Shortly thereafter, the whole scheme blew up with the whistleblower coming forward.

Taylor, Holmes, Williams, Vindman, Morrison, Sondland, and Trump himself by releasing the "transcript" of himself doing the bribery. These witnesses are all scheduled to be publicly questioned this coming week. Except Trump.

Others witnessing the bribe - 12 senior White House officials at the July 25 phone call. Several staffers overhearing Trump on the phone in Kiev talking to Sonderland. Second-hand witnesses: Kent, Cooper, Hill, Yovanovitch, Volker, a few others.

These are potential witnesses but have refused to testify. Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, a few others.

Trump and the Republicans initially denied there was a quid pro quo (bribe).
Then the Republicans agreed there was a quid pro quo.
But they said it wasn't impeachable.

This is the same party that impeached Clinton for lying about his private sex life, yet find bribery (specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable) not impeachable.

[paraclete]

I wonder what bribery in the impeachment process truely meant, and I suspect it eluded to the President profiting from his office. here there is a reverse intrepretation suggesting that the President bribed the President of the Ukraine in a manner where that person did not personally benefit and it is yet to be shown that Trump derived a personal benefit as such benefit may or may not be realised in the future, so then the whole allegation is founded in B/S