GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?

Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.

---

I would say you both have your minds made up.

---

And I would say you do as well.

What do you think I have my mind made up about? I'm curious.

---

Notice the emoji face on my post and go ***** back and forth with people on the football and basketball threads. I couldn't care less what you have or have not made up your mind about. What I won't do, is sit here and go back and forth with you and have yet another thread derailed because you enjoy the back and forth, thread derailment, nobody but your opinion matters stuff.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?

Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.

---

I would say you both have your minds made up.

---

And I would say you do as well.

What do you think I have my mind made up about? I'm curious.

---

Notice the emoji face on my post and go ***** back and forth with people on the football and basketball threads. I couldn't care less what you have or have not made up your mind about. What I won't do, is sit here and go back and forth with you and have yet another thread derailed because you enjoy the back and forth, thread derailment, nobody but your opinion matters stuff.

---

Sorry, but I'm talking about impeachment on the impeachment thread. Is that not allowed?

I asked you a question in response to something you said to me and you went ad hominem. You initiated the back and forth unprompted and are now crying foul and trying to blame me for it.

I could be misremembering but aren't you a mod? If you aren't, my apologies. If you are, then this post isn't a particularly good look for you.

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?

Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.

---

I would say you both have your minds made up.

---

And I would say you do as well.

What do you think I have my mind made up about? I'm curious.

---

Notice the emoji face on my post and go ***** back and forth with people on the football and basketball threads. I couldn't care less what you have or have not made up your mind about. What I won't do, is sit here and go back and forth with you and have yet another thread derailed because you enjoy the back and forth, thread derailment, nobody but your opinion matters stuff.

---

Sorry, but I'm talking about impeachment on the impeachment thread. Is that not allowed?

I asked you a question in response to something you said to me and you went ad hominem. You initiated the back and forth unprompted and are now crying foul and trying to blame me for it.

I could be misremembering but aren't you a mod? If you aren't, my apologies. If you are, then this post isn't a particularly good look for you.

---

Thank you for your kind words. Entertain yourself elsewhere. Have a nice day.

GoPack2008 said:

---

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

---

Volker and Sondland also testified that they felt that Trump wanted that, but didn't know one way or another. When Sondland was pushed on during his testimony that he said that Trump directly said that he didn't want any Quid Pro Quo or anything at all.

Sounds like to me you have a witness that was working off their own feelings, and not what the president actually wanted. Maybe we should look at charging Volker and Sondland for corruption instead

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Trump has had more bipartisan support than you think, for example on trade deals. The fact that he may or may not have had bipartisan support doesn't provide a good explanation for why he didn't just do this through standard channels. If it was really just about corruption, why would they freeze the aid in a manner that the pentagon warned them was illegal? Why not go through the proper protocols?

Ultimately, it seems like like you've already made up your mind. I suspect there's little point in either of us typing more.

---

I would say you both have your minds made up.

---

And I would say you do as well.

What do you think I have my mind made up about? I'm curious.

---

Notice the emoji face on my post and go ***** back and forth with people on the football and basketball threads. I couldn't care less what you have or have not made up your mind about. What I won't do, is sit here and go back and forth with you and have yet another thread derailed because you enjoy the back and forth, thread derailment, nobody but your opinion matters stuff.

---

Sorry, but I'm talking about impeachment on the impeachment thread. Is that not allowed?

I asked you a question in response to something you said to me and you went ad hominem. You initiated the back and forth unprompted and are now crying foul and trying to blame me for it.

I could be misremembering but aren't you a mod? If you aren't, my apologies. If you are, then this post isn't a particularly good look for you.

---

Thank you for your kind words. Entertain yourself elsewhere. Have a nice day.

---

Cool, I'll stay on this thread.

Edit:
You are a mod! What's with the harsh tone in your earlier post?

I truly didn't intend to provoke an argument or a fight--I really was curious what you thought I had my mind made up about. I had the guess that you were probably assuming things about my position that aren't true, but I was asking rather than assuming. I wasn't trying to derail, I really was just asking you a question.

I wasn't sure what to make of your emoji, just as you weren't sure what to make of my reply.

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

---

Volker and Sondland also testified that they felt that Trump wanted that, but didn't know one way or another. When Sondland was pushed on during his testimony that he said that Trump directly said that he didn't want any Quid Pro Quo or anything at all.

Sounds like to me you have a witness that was working off their own feelings, and not what the president actually wanted. Maybe we should look at charging Volker and Sondland for corruption instead

---

Maybe so. You could be right.

Alternatively, if they were misunderstanding what the president wanted...why wouldn't they just ask him? If Trump didn't want this, he could have clarified and told them what he really wanted.

Rudy's letter:

"Dear President-Elect Zelensky: I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States. This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same. Separate representation is not the same...

...In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday May 13th or Tuesday May 14th. I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter,"

That seems to be that Trump had a very good idea of what was going on. Certainly Rudy was representing that as such. Is that true? I don't know, but we could certainly find out.

But let's consider that you could certainly be right and they should be charged with corruption. I'd argue that we'd get there and figure that out through a full, thorough, investigation. If this is about Volker and Sondland being corrupt and misunderstanding the president, then surely that ought to argue for more evidence? Wouldn't that argue for the white house to turn over documents, for people like Bolton to testify, etc?

If Trump is innocent, then the evidence should exonerate him. Would you support the senate calling people in to testify and for the white house to release further transcripts and communications?

GoPack2008 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

---

Volker and Sondland also testified that they felt that Trump wanted that, but didn't know one way or another. When Sondland was pushed on during his testimony that he said that Trump directly said that he didn't want any Quid Pro Quo or anything at all.

Sounds like to me you have a witness that was working off their own feelings, and not what the president actually wanted. Maybe we should look at charging Volker and Sondland for corruption instead

---

Maybe so. You could be right.

Alternatively, if they were misunderstanding what the president wanted...why wouldn't they just ask him? If Trump didn't want this, he could have clarified and told them what he really wanted.

Rudy's letter:

"Dear President-Elect Zelensky: I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States. This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same. Separate representation is not the same...

...In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday May 13th or Tuesday May 14th. I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter,"

That seems to be that Trump had a very good idea of what was going on. Certainly Rudy was representing that as such. Is that true? I don't know, but we could certainly find out.

But let's consider that you could certainly be right and they should be charged with corruption. I'd argue that we'd get there and figure that out through a full, thorough, investigation. If this is about Volker and Sondland being corrupt and misunderstanding the president, then surely that ought to argue for more evidence? Wouldn't that argue for the white house to turn over documents, for people like Bolton to testify, etc?

If Trump is innocent, then the evidence should exonerate him. Would you support the senate calling people in to testify and for the white house to release further transcripts and communications?

---

I think you misunderstand. I am all for more evidence. But it isn't the senate's place to get it. That job falls to the House. If the house impeached the President with an overwhelming about of evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump should be removed from office, then present that evidence and let's rock and roll. If the House managers need something else to prove the president's guilt then shouldn't of impeached him. They should of gone to court and asked the court to have them testify, but they didn't do that. The House said that they had absolutely everything they needed beyond a doubt, if that's not the case then the articles of impeachment need to be withdrawn.

Can't have it both ways there. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House should of

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

---

Volker and Sondland also testified that they felt that Trump wanted that, but didn't know one way or another. When Sondland was pushed on during his testimony that he said that Trump directly said that he didn't want any Quid Pro Quo or anything at all.

Sounds like to me you have a witness that was working off their own feelings, and not what the president actually wanted. Maybe we should look at charging Volker and Sondland for corruption instead

---

Maybe so. You could be right.

Alternatively, if they were misunderstanding what the president wanted...why wouldn't they just ask him? If Trump didn't want this, he could have clarified and told them what he really wanted.

Rudy's letter:

"Dear President-Elect Zelensky: I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States. This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same. Separate representation is not the same...

...In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday May 13th or Tuesday May 14th. I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter,"

That seems to be that Trump had a very good idea of what was going on. Certainly Rudy was representing that as such. Is that true? I don't know, but we could certainly find out.

But let's consider that you could certainly be right and they should be charged with corruption. I'd argue that we'd get there and figure that out through a full, thorough, investigation. If this is about Volker and Sondland being corrupt and misunderstanding the president, then surely that ought to argue for more evidence? Wouldn't that argue for the white house to turn over documents, for people like Bolton to testify, etc?

If Trump is innocent, then the evidence should exonerate him. Would you support the senate calling people in to testify and for the white house to release further transcripts and communications?

---

I think you misunderstand. I am all for more evidence. But it isn't the senate's place to get it. That job falls to the House. If the house impeached the President with an overwhelming about of evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump should be removed from office, then present that evidence and let's rock and roll. If the House managers need something else to prove the president's guilt then shouldn't of impeached him. They should of gone to court and asked the court to have them testify, but they didn't do that. The House said that they had absolutely everything they needed beyond a doubt, if that's not the case then the articles of impeachment need to be withdrawn.

Can't have it both ways there. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House should of

---

The house requested all sorts of evidence. The White House has refused to turn it over. Other than your opinion, on what do you base the argument that they should have gone to the courts? The very fact that the White House is refusing to comply with subpoenas is...a problem.

What you are asserting is a matter of dispute among people who do this sort of thing for a living. It's therefore not a clear justification for not drafting the articles. They made a strategic choice that can be debated, but it doesn't delegitimize their position.

To be clear, there is already a lot of evidence. Like, a ton. It's pretty incriminating. That's what they used to draft the articles. There's hundreds of pages.

Most importantly:
Do you think that witnesses should be called? That is something that should happen during the impeachment trial; it has happened in every other impeachment trial ever conducted in the senate. Should it not happen with this one?

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

packgrad said:

---

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

---

I've thought this for a while been then there is Trump. A man who can't shut his damn mouth for the life of him. If he allowed someone to control his Twitter useage and done exactly what Clinton did(focus on the economy, work of the people, blah, blah) he and the republicans probably would. Alas, I have my doubts because up to this point, Trump has shown ZERO ability to actually do those things which he needs to do and shut the hell up about fake news, witch hunt, hoax, blah, blah. Time will tell and it will all come out in 9 months.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

---

I've thought this for a while been then there is Trump. A man who can't shut his damn mouth for the life of him. If he allowed someone to control his Twitter useage and done exactly what Clinton did(focus on the economy, work of the people, blah, blah) he and the republicans probably would. Alas, I have my doubts because up to this point, Trump has shown ZERO ability to actually do those things which he needs to do and shut the hell up about fake news, witch hunt, hoax, blah, blah. Time will tell and it will all come out in 9 months.

---

I used to feel the same way about him on Twitter. He is vastly drowned out by the lunatic left on social media. Twitter does not help the left at all either.

I did not vote for him the first time. I definitely am this time, providing nothing disastrous happens between now and then.

GoPack2008 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

GoPack2008 said:

---

Further regarding the argument that Trump just wanted to address corruption:

"We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do," Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel's inquiry.

"There's nothing illegal about it," he said. "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn't foreign policy I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Rudy is acting as Trump's personal lawyer, not as a representative of the US. If this was about corruption as a matter of policy, why would Rudy need be involved?

------

Actual text message exchange:

[7/19/19, 4:49:42 PM] Kurt Volker: Can we three do a call tomorrowsay noon WASHINGTON?
[7/19/19, 6:50:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Looks like Potus call tomorrow. I spike [sic] directly to Zelensky and gave him a full briefing. He's got it.
[7/19/19, 6:52:57 PM] Gordon Sondland: Sure!
[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning-teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigationand address any specific personnel issuesif there are any

Again, if it's actually about corruption, why the focus on Zelensky saying it?

[8/9/19, 11:27 AM] Kurt Volker: Hi Mr Mayor! Had a good chat with Yermak last night. He was pleased with your phone call. Mentioned Z making a statement. Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right. Thanks!
Gordon Sondland: Good idea Kurt. I am on Pacific time.
Rudy Giuliani: Yes can you call now going to Fundraiser at 12:30

If this was really so straight forward and about corruption, why was Bill Taylor so concerned?

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html

These are not conspiracy theories. This is a direct quote from Rudy and these are real text messages sent in real time, not some sort of hearsay. What do people make of this? Is it of no real concern? If so, why?

---

Volker and Sondland also testified that they felt that Trump wanted that, but didn't know one way or another. When Sondland was pushed on during his testimony that he said that Trump directly said that he didn't want any Quid Pro Quo or anything at all.

Sounds like to me you have a witness that was working off their own feelings, and not what the president actually wanted. Maybe we should look at charging Volker and Sondland for corruption instead

---

Maybe so. You could be right.

Alternatively, if they were misunderstanding what the president wanted...why wouldn't they just ask him? If Trump didn't want this, he could have clarified and told them what he really wanted.

Rudy's letter:

"Dear President-Elect Zelensky: I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States. This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same. Separate representation is not the same...

...In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday May 13th or Tuesday May 14th. I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter,"

That seems to be that Trump had a very good idea of what was going on. Certainly Rudy was representing that as such. Is that true? I don't know, but we could certainly find out.

But let's consider that you could certainly be right and they should be charged with corruption. I'd argue that we'd get there and figure that out through a full, thorough, investigation. If this is about Volker and Sondland being corrupt and misunderstanding the president, then surely that ought to argue for more evidence? Wouldn't that argue for the white house to turn over documents, for people like Bolton to testify, etc?

If Trump is innocent, then the evidence should exonerate him. Would you support the senate calling people in to testify and for the white house to release further transcripts and communications?

---

I think you misunderstand. I am all for more evidence. But it isn't the senate's place to get it. That job falls to the House. If the house impeached the President with an overwhelming about of evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump should be removed from office, then present that evidence and let's rock and roll. If the House managers need something else to prove the president's guilt then shouldn't of impeached him. They should of gone to court and asked the court to have them testify, but they didn't do that. The House said that they had absolutely everything they needed beyond a doubt, if that's not the case then the articles of impeachment need to be withdrawn.

Can't have it both ways there. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House should of

---

The house requested all sorts of evidence. The White House has refused to turn it over. Other than your opinion, on what do you base the argument that they should have gone to the courts? The very fact that the White House is refusing to comply with subpoenas is...a problem.

What you are asserting is a matter of dispute among people who do this sort of thing for a living. It's therefore not a clear justification for not drafting the articles. They made a strategic choice that can be debated, but it doesn't delegitimize their position.

To be clear, there is already a lot of evidence. Like, a ton. It's pretty incriminating. That's what they used to draft the articles. There's hundreds of pages.

Most importantly:
Do you think that witnesses should be called? That is something that should happen during the impeachment trial; it has happened in every other impeachment trial ever conducted in the senate. Should it not happen with this one?

---

I'm not arguing with you that the house did request evidence, nor that the White House refused to turn it over. If you want to do a little bit of reading you can start by reading Nixon v.Fitzgerald and then go from there. The fallacy of your argument is that the House withdrew their subpoenas once they were challenged in court. This is the first article of impeachment and it doesn't make any sense.

I am not saying that the House couldn't draft the articles, as they obviously can...and did. There is nothing wrong with their debate on it, but they de-legitimatized their own argument by deciding to not even argue it in court and withdrawal their subpoenas. As I said before we have co-equal branches of government and any issues that come up between the two are solved by the courts.

If the House has so much incriminating evidence, why don't they argue on that? You are trying to place the onus of gathering evidence on the Senate and that is not their place. It is the job of the House to gather evidence and present it to the Senate. We were told by Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler that there was a preponderance of evidence that he is guilty. Why try to force the senate to do more?

Do I think that the witnesses should be called? The witnesses should of been called in the House, as it is their place in the process. You are correct that there has been testimony heard from witnesses in the senate, but the part that you left out is that all of the witnesses had their testimony first heard in the House, and that the Impeachment prosecutors used that testimony, there were not brand new witnesses in the Senate.

I ask you: If the democrats have all of this incriminating evidence, why don't the present it instead of complaining that they don't get their way here too.

^they are presenting it. That's what the past two days have been.

Why do you think they aren't presenting it? I'm honestly not following you. Your complaint seems to hinge on procedural technicalities, rather than the actual story that has emerged. You've dismissed a central question of why Rudy needed to be involved, you've moved away from trying to assert this was about corruption (if it was, Trump wouldn't have needed to involve Rudy), etc. I find that interesting.

GoPack2008 said:

---

^they are presenting it. That's what the past two days have been.

Why do you think they aren't presenting it? I'm honestly not following you. Your complaint seems to hinge on procedural technicalities, rather than the actual story that has emerged. You've dismissed a central question of why Rudy needed to be involved, you've moved away from trying to assert this was about corruption (if it was, Trump wouldn't have needed to involve Rudy), etc. I find that interesting.

---

Ahh.... the argue for the sake of arguing message board guy. If you're honestly not following him, you're not the sharp fellow you pretend yourself to be. It's rather simple. The Dems said they had a slam dunk case based on the testimony in the House. They impeached on this testimony. Now they're crying because they can't call more witnesses.

GoPack2008 said:

---

^they are presenting it. That's what the past two days have been.

Why do you think they aren't presenting it? I'm honestly not following you. Your complaint seems to hinge on procedural technicalities, rather than the actual story that has emerged. You've dismissed a central question of why Rudy needed to be involved, you've moved away from trying to assert this was about corruption (if it was, Trump wouldn't have needed to involve Rudy), etc. I find that interesting.

---

Trump wasn't impeached on whatever came forward after they passed the articles of impeachment. If the House wants to go with what has come out in the last week then they need to pull their articles, re-hold hearings in the House, and impeach him on something different

Trump could fire the witch of an ambassador anytime for any reason. She works at the pleasure of the president just like deputies for Baker the WC Sheriff. Her and the Lt Col are traitors if anyone would take notice. Democrats have NOTHING on Trump !! They come up with story lines so the liberal media will blast the lies they tell to the American people. George S from CBS News is the biggest liar of all.

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

---

I've thought this for a while been then there is Trump. A man who can't shut his damn mouth for the life of him. If he allowed someone to control his Twitter useage and done exactly what Clinton did(focus on the economy, work of the people, blah, blah) he and the republicans probably would. Alas, I have my doubts because up to this point, Trump has shown ZERO ability to actually do those things which he needs to do and shut the hell up about fake news, witch hunt, hoax, blah, blah. Time will tell and it will all come out in 9 months.

---

I used to feel the same way about him on Twitter. He is vastly drowned out by the lunatic left on social media. Twitter does not help the left at all either.

I did not vote for him the first time. I definitely am this time, providing nothing disastrous happens between now and then.

---

You think the President of the United States is being drowned out on Twitter? You honestly believe this?

PackBacker07 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

---

I've thought this for a while been then there is Trump. A man who can't shut his damn mouth for the life of him. If he allowed someone to control his Twitter useage and done exactly what Clinton did(focus on the economy, work of the people, blah, blah) he and the republicans probably would. Alas, I have my doubts because up to this point, Trump has shown ZERO ability to actually do those things which he needs to do and shut the hell up about fake news, witch hunt, hoax, blah, blah. Time will tell and it will all come out in 9 months.

---

I used to feel the same way about him on Twitter. He is vastly drowned out by the lunatic left on social media. Twitter does not help the left at all either.

I did not vote for him the first time. I definitely am this time, providing nothing disastrous happens between now and then.

---

You think the President of the United States is being drowned out on Twitter? You honestly believe this?

---

He posted like 54 times before lunch the other day didn't he?

PackBacker07 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

There is a lot of hearsay evidence. Nothing factual. Nothing concrete. Dems are going to get steamrolled this election.

---

I've thought this for a while been then there is Trump. A man who can't shut his damn mouth for the life of him. If he allowed someone to control his Twitter useage and done exactly what Clinton did(focus on the economy, work of the people, blah, blah) he and the republicans probably would. Alas, I have my doubts because up to this point, Trump has shown ZERO ability to actually do those things which he needs to do and shut the hell up about fake news, witch hunt, hoax, blah, blah. Time will tell and it will all come out in 9 months.

---

I used to feel the same way about him on Twitter. He is vastly drowned out by the lunatic left on social media. Twitter does not help the left at all either.

I did not vote for him the first time. I definitely am this time, providing nothing disastrous happens between now and then.

---

You think the President of the United States is being drowned out on Twitter? You honestly believe this?

---

The quantity of anti trump on Twitter vastly outweighs anything pro Trump. You honestly believe otherwise?

Regardless of your position on this particular case, this argument is very disturbing:

PackBacker07 said:

---

Regardless of your position on this particular case, this argument is very disturbing:

---

Think about what every person who has ever held the office has run on in their second term. "I kept my campaign promises by doing A, B, and C."

Doesn't that by its definition mean that if the president does anything that they said that they would do that they are helping themselves and therefore should be impeached?

^ Not sure I follow?

What I got from Dershowitz was that anything a POTUS does to get re-elected could be considered in the nation's interest and if it's in the nation's interest they cannot be impeached. To me that is startling and quite frankly bordering on lunacy. This is not anti or pro-Trump, this is just a general statement for any POTUS.

That seems different than your example above IMO.

PackBacker07 said:

---

What I got from Dershowitz was that anything a POTUS does to get re-elected could be considered in the nation's interest and if it's in the nation's interest they cannot be impeached. To me that is startling and quite frankly bordering on lunacy. This is not anti or pro-Trump, this is just a general statement for any POTUS.

That seems different than your example above IMO.

---

I think there is a lot more nuance that can't be fit into a 5 minute question but technically I beleve he is correct. We are a representative republic where the president is the only person that is elected by the entire country to lead the country in a direction that he sees fit. He gets to name judges, lead foreign policy, and can veto legislation. His handpicked cabinet runs almost every department in the country. He can use executive orders to do a lot of things. That is also why it is so hard to remove the president from office. He was quite literally elected because the majority of our country decided that his interest aligned with their interest.

There are several ways to cap his power. The legislative body could overturn his veto, but there is an extremely high bar for that. They can also try to remove the president by impeaching him, but there is a very precise process and an extremely high bar to cross.

What I have seen that I don't agree with is Congress giving away it's power, which they haven't had an issue doing (depending on the political party in power). A few things that come to mind immediately are war powers, ability to call national emergencies, and immigration. All these are things that the current president has used that the current Congress has gone after him over. The truth is that they gave away those powers willingly to a president that they liked at the time, but the truth is that if they had followed the original government that was laid out none of this would of been an issue, because the president couldn't of done it.

Sorry...got on a tangent...my apologies. Back to the impeachment.

Impeachment is for one of three things: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What I believe, and I believe what AD is trying to explain above is that this impeachment is because of a policy difference, even though the president has the right to set policy however he wants because the people's interest and the president's interest are aligned due to him being elected by the entire country. Trump says that he was going after corruption when he asked the Ukrainian president to do US (and yes, the correct word there is us, not me, and I don't care how many times Schiff misquotes it he is still wrong) a favor. If that's what he wants to do, as president he has a right to ask an ally to investigate corruption. Especially if that corruption is in our own government.

I do believe that it is in the best interest the country to investigate corruption of politicians that we put in power. It just so happened that it was in Trump's self interest to do it as well. That makes this a prime example of when a president's personal interest line up perfectly with our nation's best interest. The whole drain the swamp thing comes to mind here.

Edited to add that another way to cap the president's power is the courts, although I would say at this point that those have turned more partisan than I would like.

Looking like this whole thing is gonna wrap up today

cowboypack02 said:

---

I do believe that it is in the best interest the country to investigate corruption of politicians that we put in power. It just so happened that it was in Trump's self interest to do it as well. That makes this a prime example of when a president's personal interest line up perfectly with our nation's best interest. The whole drain the swamp thing comes to mind here.

---

QQ: Do you believe Trump is interested in rooting out corruption across the board in Government?

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I do believe that it is in the best interest the country to investigate corruption of politicians that we put in power. It just so happened that it was in Trump's self interest to do it as well. That makes this a prime example of when a president's personal interest line up perfectly with our nation's best interest. The whole drain the swamp thing comes to mind here.

---

QQ: Do you believe Trump is interested in rooting out corruption across the board in Government?

---

Until proven otherwise i would assume that's the case.

Same thing with Obama during his term. He directly told the Russian prime minister that he would have more flexibility after his election. I didn't run for the hill screaming about it that.

Understood. It does seem strange that Trump would have his personal lawyer drive much of this conversation, rather than letting Ambassadors and the State Dept. work with the Justice Dept to lead the discussion.

statefan91 said:

---

Understood. It does seem strange that Trump would have his personal lawyer drive much of this conversation, rather than letting Ambassadors and the State Dept. work with the Justice Dept to lead the discussion.

---

I agree - But after hearing the folks within the State Department speak i can't blame him at this point. You had multiple witnesses during the house hearings complain about the way that Trump wanted to do things including one discuss that the president was wrong because Trump didn't follow along with the talking points that were laid out for him. Regardless of if you agree with Trump or not the fact is that the President gets to set foreign policy and everyone is suppose to follow it.

It seems to me that we have unelected bureaucrats that are doing what they want because they disagreed. That isn't right.

I also think that one of the biggest mistakes of the Trump presidency was not firing every single person that worked in the previous administration.

It sounds like they were trying to follow protocols? It's not like everyone that was working in the State Dept was hired during the Obama administration. Many of the key figures during the hearings over the past six months were appointed in Republican administrations. People that have lived and breathed working in the State Dept. that were trying to keep things from going off the rails?

statefan91 said:

---

It sounds like they were trying to follow protocols? It's not like everyone that was working in the State Dept was hired during the Obama administration. Many of the key figures during the hearings over the past six months were appointed in Republican administrations. People that have lived and breathed working in the State Dept. that were trying to keep things from going off the rails?

---

Depends on your definition. The president defines how he wants things to be handled with foreign governments, not unelected state department people. If the president wants to do things a certain way, including making things going off the rails, he gets that right because that's what he was elected to do. If we as a people don't like it then we have the right to elect someone else to do it.

What protocols are suppose to be followed? All of the people that were interviews by the house talked about how they felt things were being handled, not protocols.

There is a dispute within a family business that is kinda the same way right now. My dad started a business 20 years ago, and my brother has worked for him his entire working life. My dad wants to do things one way, but my brother doesn't agree with it. My brother will yell and complain but he has forgotten the one fact that he can't overcome...My dad owns the business. At the end of the day it's my brother's job to either do what Dad wants to do, or move on to something else. Its the same way with the State Dept. It doesn't matter when you were hired, your ultimate goal is to follow what the President wants to do, and you can leave if you don't like it. If people within the State Dept didn't want to do that they should of left.

But I guess my question is who was directing them to do the things that they weren't doing? I assume most of the people don't have interactions with the President directly, save Sondland. Was the President's personal lawyer working outside of the State Dept and giving orders to State Dept employees? Honestly the whole thing is a big confusing.

statefan91 said:

---

But I guess my question is who was directing them to do the things that they weren't doing? I assume most of the people don't have interactions with the President directly, save Sondland. Was the President's personal lawyer working outside of the State Dept and giving orders to State Dept employees? Honestly the whole thing is a big confusing.

---

That's fair. I'm not sure how the command structure works in the State Dept, but someone there was way off.