President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.

a reply to: TheRedneck

President Trump had Rudy Giuliani looking into Biden/DNC/Hillary Ukraine involvement before Biden entered the race. The high-profile Senate Impeachment trial will be the perfect venue for getting that info into mainstream news.

Right now, only those who have been following Q, and conservative investigators (like John Solomon), are aware of it.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: chr0naut

So where is the evidence that Trump personally asked Zelensky to dig up evidence of Hunter Biden after it was determined there were no implications of wrongdoing on his part?

Surely, if they are re-opening an investigation, they have already completed and closed the previous investigation (which did not find any wrongdoing on behalf of Hunter Biden)?

So the 'phone call requesting that the investigation be re-opened must have been after, or am I missing something, here?

And last I heard Zelensky himself said that Trump didn't make any threats of withholding funds, and honestly I'm not going to buy into anything that has to do with Russian/Ukrainian wordplay. If Zelensky had been pressured he would have said so. He made his own decision.

I'm really just asking for some straight up answers.

Zelensky would not necessarily say he was pressured, especially if he was being pressured.

It would be disastrous for himself and the Ukraine if they lost military aid and had other sanctions (such as trade) leveled against the country.

They are still currently in a state of war with Russia:

Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia has already annexed Crimea and is clearly expansionist against Ukraine. If the Ukraine lost its alliance with the US, it would, no doubt, fall. So it makes sense that Zelensky would say whatever it takes to retain that US alliance.

The Trump Administration goes too far with attempting to pacify critics.

Bidens/DNC/FusionGPS conducted corrupt or illicit practices in Ukraine. All that's needed is to present the evidence. Forget the myriad defensive explanations.

Soleimani killed/maimed thousands of Americans over the years. We killed him for that, just like we killed Osama Bin-Laden for the American murders he oversaw. The "he was planning to blow up...." reasoning/excuse is not needed.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

There are e-mails from Michael Duffey National Security associate director, directing the State Department to put a hold on the payment of the military aid money to the Ukraine, while it was under evaluation by the President.

Did those emails say why Ukraine was being evaluated?

I don't believe there was any direction as to why the funding was being reviewed.

And even if they did, were they notarized by Donald Trump?

One e-mail to the Pentagon Comptroller said: "The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up". I would think that Duffey, communicating to other departments about the wishes of the Executive, is fairly normal.

Here again,

originally posted by: TheRedneck

If Joe heard Bob telling Ted that he heard Bill on the phone saying Jerry was going to murder Sam... well, that's not exactly enough to accuse Jerry of anything, especially if Sam is still alive and saying they were talking about video game play.

TheRedneck

It wasn't through a particularly convoluted path.

a reply to: Gandalf77

If there isn't anything to hide, why can't those people testify?

If the House's case was so cut and dried, why couldn't Trump's attorneys question witnesses?

The Senate is not saying there can be no witnesses. They are saying they want to see the evidence from the House and Trump's rebuttals before they decide it there is a need for more witnesses. The House wants John Bolton to be called; Trump wants Hunter Biden called. The Progressives are demanding Bolton testify, but they don't want Biden to testify. That's just more of the same one-sided kangaroo-court tactics we are all tired of.

The House put together a case they can't defend. Now they want a do-over.

Why won't they hand over those documents?

They would have, with the proper court order. The Executive Branch is not subservient to the Legislative Branch.

Why was Pelosi afraid to go to court to force the documents? Was she sure she'd lose?

Why not let the truth come out?

I want the truth out. We won't get any truth out of a one-sided hearing like the House conducted.

What are they afraid of?

A coup by the Progressives. Why give one's opponent ammunition to twist into a weapon? The Progressives would take what Trump had for breakfast that morning and use it to impeach him if they could figure out how. One does not 'cooperate' with such an obsessed prosecutor.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

President Trump had Rudy Giuliani looking into Biden/DNC/Hillary Ukraine involvement before Biden entered the race. The high-profile Senate Impeachment trial will be the perfect venue for getting that info into mainstream news.

Oh, I'm sure that was Trump's reasoning for wanting a full trial. But either way, Biden will not become President and thus will remain a citizen only. Hunter isn't even in the running for office. Both are subject to prosecution, and I feel certain that prosecution will happen eventually.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't believe there was any direction as to why the funding was being reviewed.

So your claim is complete speculation. Got it. Does New Zealand convict people based solely on speculation?

We don't do that here.

One e-mail to the Pentagon Comptroller said: "The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up". I would think that Duffey, communicating to other departments about the wishes of the Executive, is fairly normal.

So you get "Trump wants dirt on Joe Biden so hold up the money" from that statement?

How un-intuitive of you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't believe there was any direction as to why the funding was being reviewed.

So your claim is complete speculation. Got it. Does New Zealand convict people based solely on speculation?

We don't do that here.

One e-mail to the Pentagon Comptroller said: "The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up". I would think that Duffey, communicating to other departments about the wishes of the Executive, is fairly normal.

So you get "Trump wants dirt on Joe Biden so hold up the money" from that statement?

How un-intuitive of you.

TheRedneck

Just because no reason was given, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The e-mail confirms that there was direction by the President to suspend the funding. It happened.

The absence of a reason being given for the suspension of funding leaves strong suspicion about his motive to do so. Surely if a President cuts support to an ally, military aid in a time of war, there has to be a damn good reason for it?

Asking for a reopening of an investigation is just one fact, but the suspension of military aid could have such dire consequences for the Ukraine that there has to be a very good reason for it. If the President was random enough to do it without a very strong motive, then that would be very worrying.

And before you go into suggesting that motive is speculative, in all cases, unless the perpetrator confesses, motive is speculative. We can't know the mind of another person.

So we have both the self admission of the 'phone call and then the suspension of aid, which fit a possible motive. And witness testimony confirms that the President was aware of the consequences of such actions. Congress obviously believes there is grounds for a trial with one of the articles.

The second article relates to the obstruction that the White House gave to the investigative process. That was also something definitely evidenced and factors into the same possible motive for the other article of impeachment.

a reply to: chr0naut

Just because no reason was given, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The e-mail confirms that there was direction by the President to suspend the funding. It happened.

The absence of a reason being given for the suspension of funding leaves strong suspicion about his motive to do so.

Suspicion is not fact.

What Trump did was not a crime unless it was done specifically for the purpose of improperly interfering in an election. That's the part you keep glossing over. There is no crime until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to unjustly interfere with an election.

The keys are the words "intended" and "unjustly." Those have to be proven before there is any guilt. You can play New Zealander all you want and claim that suspicion is sufficient, but we don't do that here. We don't punish people because someone suspects something. We conduct investigations and let the facts speak. No facts, no guilt.

I had a chance to visit New Zealand a while back; things fell through, and now I'm glad they did! Someone might look at me and think I looked suspicious, and according to you I'd spend the rest of my life in one of your jail cells just for looking suspicious.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Just because no reason was given, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The e-mail confirms that there was direction by the President to suspend the funding. It happened.

The absence of a reason being given for the suspension of funding leaves strong suspicion about his motive to do so.

Suspicion is not fact.

That is true. That is why there are investigations to gather evidence and courts to try cases, to determine if the suspicion is grounded.

What Trump did was not a crime unless it was done specifically for the purpose of improperly interfering in an election. That's the part you keep glossing over. There is no crime until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to unjustly interfere with an election.

Whether a crime was committed, or not, is evaluated by a judge and jury under the US system. In the case of impeachment of the President, by the impeachment trial, which has not yet happened in Trump's case.

The keys are the words "intended" and "unjustly." Those have to be proven before there is any guilt. You can play New Zealander all you want and claim that suspicion is sufficient, but we don't do that here. We don't punish people because someone suspects something. We conduct investigations and let the facts speak. No facts, no guilt.

The decision upon guilt or innocence of the charges are determined by the legal trial process, not before.

I had a chance to visit New Zealand a while back; things fell through, and now I'm glad they did! Someone might look at me and think I looked suspicious, and according to you I'd spend the rest of my life in one of your jail cells just for looking suspicious.

TheRedneck

'Looking suspicious' isn't a crime.

The prosecution needs to have a strong case that a specific crime has been committed, prior to proceeding to trial, and you don't get convicted until after the trial finds you guilty.

That is the case even in somewhere like the US.

Senators Warren, Sanders, and Bennet, need to be RECUSED (voluntarily or forcefully) from voting on Procedures, Witnesses, etc.., because a POLITICAL RIVAL (Trump) is on Trial.

Hahahaha
67 votes new zealand
And the dems dont have them
Trump wins again

And the dems have assured his re election

a reply to: chr0naut

'Looking suspicious' isn't a crime.

Apparently it is where you are.

You are on here regularly trying to convince someone (yourself maybe? No one else is taking you seriously) that Trump is guilty of something even though the investigation was inherently flawed and still turned up no evidence other than hearsay and opinions. So you'll forgive me for the assumption that where you are that is all that is required for arrest and imprisonment. Since your location bar specifies New Zealand, I have to assume that's how the law works there.

Don't be ashamed of it... unlike you, I consider other countries sovereign; I don't demand they do things the way I want. Not my business, so you can go arrest whoever you want for whatever reason you want on whatever evidence you do or do not want.

I just won't be going there.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Every Senator running for President just got a terrible disadvantage. Instead of campaigning, they will be forced, under penalty of imprisonment, to sit quietly during the entire trial, six days a week. Gonna be hard to be in Iowa and DC at the same time.

Biden will be the DNC candidate, and the ball from Ukraine will drop on his head and bury him just before the election.

Or... assuming the Democrats are that stupid and keep demanding more 'witnesses,' Biden will be arrested for money laundering, tax evasion, and fraud against the US before the primaries are up, and someone like Buttigieg or Bloomberg will swoop in and grab the nomination. Either way, Trump wins.

Then, as a lame duck no longer needing to campaign and with impeachment a tired old joke that no one pays any attention to, he can actually clean the entire swamp.

We're gonna need bigger jails...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought Brexit and everything that goes with it was a complete crock of the proverbial but I just don't get all this impeachment bollocks.

I may not agree with everything Trump does or says but I really fail to see why this great drama?

I'm not entirely ignorant of US process and procedure but I'm hardly an expert.....but looking from the outside in this is truly baffling.

The US people deserve far better than this.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

'Looking suspicious' isn't a crime.

Apparently it is where you are.

You are on here regularly trying to convince someone (yourself maybe? No one else is taking you seriously) that Trump is guilty of something even though the investigation was inherently flawed and still turned up no evidence other than hearsay and opinions.

And documents, emails, letters sent to Congress, letters sent to Republican Senators and Congressmen, a transcript or two and witnesses. None damning on their own, but the picture they paint is clear. That is what usually happens in a court case. No single piece of evidence on its own can tell the whole story but combined, they are irrefutable.

So you'll forgive me for the assumption that where you are that is all that is required for arrest and imprisonment. Since your location bar specifies New Zealand, I have to assume that's how the law works there.

But that is based upon your assumptions about the meaning of what I posted. Because I clearly stated that acting suspiciously wasn't grounds for imprisonment either here or in the US, yet here you are repeating it. Clearly, you didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Don't be ashamed of it... unlike you, I consider other countries sovereign; I don't demand they do things the way I want.

I didn't make any such demand.

I also do consider national sovereignty 'a thing'. For instance, Iraq and Iran are sovereign nations. The US has no right to be there if the US were to actually acknowledge their sovereignty over their own territories.

Not my business, so you can go arrest whoever you want for whatever reason you want on whatever evidence you do or do not want.

I just won't be going there.

TheRedneck

That's cool by me. I'll never go to hick-town America either. We are each safe within our own sovereignties (except you have to keep a loaded weapon on hand - so different levels of 'safe').

a reply to: chr0naut

And documents, emails, letters sent to Congress, letters sent to Republican Senators and Congressmen, a transcript or two and witnesses. None damning on their own, but the picture they paint is clear.

Not one of which was penned by the President, and not one of which indicated an unjust request. Recall that, in the House impeachment hearings, every single witness against Trump was asked if the President committed any crime at all. Every one answered no.

Only one actually had any contact with Donald Trump... and he changed his story several times. In none of the incarnations of his gymnastic memory could he state that Donald Trump had committed any crime. All that remains, then, is a lot of circumstantial evidence, assembled by a group of people who have been trying to find a reason to impeach the President for three years now, and who continually misrepresented the information they had multiple times during the hearing on a regular basis.

And you think that makes the President guilty of something?

Yeah, those assurances of yours don't look too good right about now. Sounds like you're talking out of both ends, to be honest.

I didn't make any such demand.

Oh, really?

Decorum prohibits me from spending the next two pages listing all of the things you have 'demanded' of America... but I will remind you of one recent thread on gun control where you certainly were demanding that the US outlaw guns.

As to who's safer? Well, I have a gun and you don't...

TheRedneck

GOOD NEWS! With Ukrainian Lev Parnas spilling his guts last night, it looks like we'll be heading for a Full Senate Trial, complete with witnesses.

Separately, Parnas told Maddow that Trump was contemplating cutting all forms of financial assistance to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden, not just military aid -- and, Parnas said, the plot had a clear political motivation. (Trump has raised concerns over Biden's recorded 2018 boast of having Ukraine's top prosecutor fired, as well as Hunter Biden's lucrative role on a Ukrainian company's board while his father was directing Ukraine policy as vice president.)

"Yeah, it was all about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and also Rudy had a personal thing with the [Paul] Manafort black ledger stuff," Parnas claimed. "But, it was never about corruption, it was strictly about Burisma, which included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden." The so-called "black ledger" purportedly showed millions of dollars from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

More at: www.foxnews.com...

Schiff, Ciaramella, the ICIG, Bidens, Giuliani....will all be called, in addition to Parnas, Bolton, Mulvaney for the Dims.

Have enough popcorn on hand for several weeks of fireworks!

a reply to: carewemust

You forgot Lutsenkov(sp?), the prosecutor General who replaced Shokin (Shokin is too ill to make the trip due to a poisoning attempt). He can directly counter Parnas' allegations and has actual documentation to back that up. Shokin's documentation could also be introduced as evidence... all signed and dated. I've been digging into Ukraine based on what's being discovered bit by bit.

Guiliani can probably refute Parnas as well, again, all documented and verified by additional witnesses.

The Bidens are not really needed to defend Trump, although their testimony is certainly relevant. If they are called, it is icing on the cake and a segway into a complete investigation of their activities. Schiff and Pelosi may have just nailed their coffins shut. Hunter leads to Joe, Joe leads to Obama, Obama leads to Hillary, and that collapses the whole house of cards.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yeah..the list of witnesses grows by the day, doesn't it? Three month trial ahead, minimum.