In light of the mounting evidence, Trump's impeachment is a foregone conclusion.

Chuck, baby, you gotta learn to mind your own business. You've got a drunk frat boy for a PM and you think us yanks are going to care about your opinion? Sad!

Yes, it would be good if Trump respected the electoral process. Despite what you think - and I use the word 'think' advisedly in your case - there wasn't a normal diplomatic process to be seen - as every official involved testifies. But keep justifying his mendacity and corruption, by all means.

Let's be clear about something, what Trump did is not quid pro quo and the media should stop referring to it as quid pro quo. Quid pro quo is a free exchange. One party gladly exchanges a service or goods for another. That money that Trump was holding back was already legally given to Ukraine. They shouldn't have to do anything additional for it.

This was clearly extortion. If you want the money the you desperately need and for which you are legally entitled, you need to investigate my political opponent and announce that investigation to the world. That is extortion.

This is correct. Quid pro quo is a euphemism for the extortion here.

C0l0rado wrote:

This is correct. Quid pro quo is a euphemism for the extortion here.

The WH is going to want the action to continue to be referred to as quid pro quo because they know that his base is going to think that this is just some term someone made up to accuse their hero. Bad Wigins is a perfect example of this. They are too stupid to understand.

I expect that during the hearings, more and more, we'll hear the terms bribery and extortion used in their proper form.

Conundrum wrote:

Let's be clear about something, what Trump did is not quid pro quo and the media should stop referring to it as quid pro quo. Quid pro quo is a free exchange. One party gladly exchanges a service or goods for another. That money that Trump was holding back was already legally given to Ukraine. They shouldn't have to do anything additional for it.

This was clearly extortion. If you want the money the you desperately need and for which you are legally entitled, you need to investigate my political opponent and announce that investigation to the world. That is extortion.

That's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter what you call it. It was 100% legal and appropriate.

This out-of-control President thinks he’s above the law. But incompetence is not defense for lawlessness.

Canendthissillythread wrote:

NotPC wrote:

Yeah, the Dems have been saying they were going to impeach him since the day they won Congress.

They know now that their pool of candidates has turned out to be more of a cesspool, so they are going to go through this big show, and impeach DT and then the Senate will nix it and it will all be over with.

This is just a big show to appease their base and try to get some traction in 2020.

The only wild card is DT himself who can't shut up enough to protect himself. He is apt to say anything, and that could be his undoing.

You nailed it completely!

I do not know all the details. It seems like some run of the mill corruption that has gone on forever that Trump is not even directly connected to. You could find this in any presidential tenure.

Trump breaks tradition instead of kissing up to every politician and helping them succeed, so they are playing it back at him. I am sure he did break plenty of serious rules.

I am sure diplomacy, honest accountability, and a fairer system would help us.

I am sure plenty of past Presidents have done worse, legally speaking.

I am sure there is more than enough dirt to dig up on all sides to cause problems, and they probably will do so in this case against Trump because he is hitting them without restraint.

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) wrote:

Conundrum wrote:

Let's be clear about something, what Trump did is not quid pro quo and the media should stop referring to it as quid pro quo. Quid pro quo is a free exchange. One party gladly exchanges a service or goods for another. That money that Trump was holding back was already legally given to Ukraine. They shouldn't have to do anything additional for it.

This was clearly extortion. If you want the money the you desperately need and for which you are legally entitled, you need to investigate my political opponent and announce that investigation to the world. That is extortion.

That's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter what you call it. It was 100% legal and appropriate.

The American constitution says no.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) wrote:

That's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter what you call it. It was 100% legal and appropriate.

The American constitution says no.

According to which part of the Constitution?

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The American constitution says no.

According to which part of the Constitution?

Section 4, Article 2 - "high crimes and misdemeanours". These need not be criminal offences (although defence department officials have testified that Trump's freezing aid to Ukraine was likely illegal). The issue is whether the President abused his powers and the public's trust in his office. According to constitutional legal analysts, his using his office to achieve personal gain, by asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent, falls within that category, and this is added to by his effectively inviting a foreign power to intervene in a US election - also impeachable - and added to further by his trading promised military aid to that government in exchange for that information (which - as he was seeking to withhold that aid until he got the information he was after - is more properly described as extortion). Congress will impeach him. The Republicans in the Senate will defend him to the death, because they have long ago sacrificed principle to self-interest.

"Dig up dirt" implies asking to find something new. That'sot what Trump did. Biden was already under investigation for hooking his son up years ago. Biden himself has bragged about using extortion to get the investigation stopped. That's on tape. In his own words. Trump didn't want any new dirt dug up...he wanted the illegal activity that Biden weaseled his way out of to be looked into.

And since when does being a presidential candidate exempt you from being held accountable for crimes you committed in the past?

Investigating Biden's corruption is in the country's interests, not his personal interests. His personal interests would be promoting Biden in the primary so he could steamroll him in the general election.

Wrong. If there was damaging information available on Biden then Trump wouldn't be seeking the Ukrainian president to investigate him. It wouldn't have been necessary because it would have already been public knowledge. None of the claims about Biden or his son have been substantiated. Trump was fishing.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Investigating Biden's corruption is in the country's interests, not his personal interests. His personal interests would be promoting Biden in the primary so he could steamroll him in the general election.

If Biden was corrupt then Trump wouldn't be digging to try to find dirt on him. He hasn't found it and he can't. But Trump's corruption is a daily public parade.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Investigating Biden's corruption is in the country's interests, not his personal interests. His personal interests would be promoting Biden in the primary so he could steamroll him in the general election.

With the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and a friendly AG, why would the POTUS need to bribe another country to "investigate" Biden and his son?

You can't see the forest through the trees.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Investigating Biden's corruption is in the country's interests, not his personal interests. His personal interests would be promoting Biden in the primary so he could steamroll him in the general election.

If Biden was corrupt then Trump wouldn't be digging to try to find dirt on him. He hasn't found it and he can't. But Trump's corruption is a daily public parade.

Biden's crackhead son who knows nothing about the oil industry gets paid $600k a year to be on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil company. Whether it is corrupt or not, that is enough to raise valid suspicion, and it is the President's duty to ensure Ukraine investigates it.

TTH wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Investigating Biden's corruption is in the country's interests, not his personal interests. His personal interests would be promoting Biden in the primary so he could steamroll him in the general election.

With the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and a friendly AG, why would the POTUS need to bribe another country to "investigate" Biden and his son?

You can't see the forest through the trees.

Why shouldn't Ukraine investigate it? It's happening in their country.