The Investigation

Mety said:
irvinehomeowner said:
Mety said:
irvinehomeowner said:
Abuse of power is not enough?

How about obstruction of Congress?

That's what Google says he is being impeached for.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not supporting him or any other parties personally. But what you just said is everything I hear. Abusing of power. Obstruction of congress. What I want to know is "how?" How did he abuse and obstruct? And are they not biased or subjective?

Lying of a sexual relation with someone who is not your wife while in the Office is something pretty clear of abusing of power. I understood that while I was young. But this time, I'm not sure what they're fighting with or for. That's why I think Trump might have actually ignited this whole thing to get more support from his hardcore supporters for the upcoming election >:D.
Click to expand...

"I don't work for you"... look it up yourself. :)

Let's say this is fact... he withheld US aid from the President of Metyskan unless said President investigated Belly.

Is that impeachable?
Click to expand...

Is that impeachable? I'll let the experts answer this.

I would rather stick with a reality than keep thinking of what ifs. The reality is Trump is acquitted. Now let's back to RE.
Click to expand...

It will go down in US history. As the only US President impeached without any witnesses.
 
there were plenty of witnesses.  the notion that there were not witnesses is categorically false (do i sound like the talking heads on tv yet?)

in case you forgot:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. Vindman listened to the July 25 telephone conversation in the White House Situation Room and reported his concerns about the president's mention of political investigations to the top NSC attorney, John Eisenberg. He said the attorney decided to move the record of the call onto a highly classified system that few could access.

Jennifer Williams, a foreign service aide detailed to Vice President Pence's office who listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy.
Tuesday, second panel at 2:30 p.m. ET

Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, who along with Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry was part of the "three amigos" tasked by the president to handle Ukraine policy. He was on the list of witnesses requested to appear by Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Tim Morrison, the former National Security Council aide who heard the July 25 call but in closed-door testimony told the committees conducting the impeachment inquiry that he didn't view the president's actions as illegal or inappropriate. Republicans say his testimony supports the president's position that there was nothing improper about the July 25 call, and they included him on a list of witnesses they asked the Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to call.

Gordon Sondland. Once a top donor to the president's inaugural committee, Sondland has faced intense scrutiny about his closed-door testimony after he sent the committee a three-page amendment reversing his initial account. In that addendum, Sondland said he personally told a top aide to Zelenskiy that the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine was linked to investigations.

Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, who in closed-door testimony said that Ukrainians raised the administration's delay of $391 million in security assistance in August. She said that she spoke to Volker about the issue and that he told her he was working with Ukrainians to make a statement disavowing election interference.

David Hale, the undersecretary of state for political affairs at the State Department. He testified behind closed doors on Nov. 6, and Republicans asked for him to appear in the public hearings.

Fiona Hill, formerly the top Russia specialist on the National Security Council, testified last month that she registered concerns about the parallel foreign policy channel that Giuliani was using to impact policy in Ukraine. She told investigators that she discussed her concerns with then-National Security Adviser John Bolton, who said that Giuliani was "a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up."

David Holmes, a State Department aide who overheard a phone conversation between Sondland and the president on July 26. Holmes appeared in a closed-door interview on Friday, but several Democrats who listened to his testimony indicated that they wanted him to appear in a public hearing.
 
I never said that, but why did the president block him from testifying. Also, block him for releasing his book. Didn?t Trump say John will start WW6?
I think a person can argue that Trumps public comments about Bolton takes away executive privilege. (That?s what I hear idk)
 
Who cares what Bolton has to say? He's just trying to sell his book to stupid Liberals. Bolton was one of the fabricators of the non-existent WMDs that tricked us into the Iraq War. For Bolton, whose lies contributed to the loss of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in taxpayer money, to complain about Trump's phone call is truly laughable.
 
Accordion to the appeals court Trump is #winning again. Ripped that law suit in half!
;D
Trump Wins AGAIN As Court Throws Out Dems? Emoluments Lawsuit

On Friday, President Trump scored another victory, as a three-judge panel ruled against congressional Democrats, dismissing their emoluments lawsuit, the first case where they sued Trump, that alleged Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, arguing he had done so because his ownership of certain businesses meant that he was receiving payments from foreign officials without approval from Congress.

As CNN reported, the three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Karen Henderson, David Tatel and Thomas Griffith, unanimously ruled that the Democrats had no legal standing to challenge the President, writing that their ?claim is based entirely on the loss of political power ? The district court erred in holding that the Members suffered an injury based on ?the President ?. Depriving (them) of the opportunity to give or withhold their consent (to foreign emoluments), thereby injuring them in their roles as members of Congress ? Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members ? 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives ? do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President?s acceptance of foreign emoluments.?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-wins-again-as-court-throws-out-dems-emoluments-lawsuit
 
Read the summary or opinion it was by a technicality. They need a majority. Does it mean if all the house member sign it?

The misinformation by Morekas is unbelievable.
The chicken guy who started to promote his friends franchise, but shortly after my response he stated he doesn?t go there also. Lol

morekaos said:
Accordion to the appeals court Trump is #winning again. Ripped that law suit in half!
;D
Trump Wins AGAIN As Court Throws Out Dems? Emoluments Lawsuit

On Friday, President Trump scored another victory, as a three-judge panel ruled against congressional Democrats, dismissing their emoluments lawsuit, the first case where they sued Trump, that alleged Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, arguing he had done so because his ownership of certain businesses meant that he was receiving payments from foreign officials without approval from Congress.

As CNN reported, the three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Karen Henderson, David Tatel and Thomas Griffith, unanimously ruled that the Democrats had no legal standing to challenge the President, writing that their ?claim is based entirely on the loss of political power ? The district court erred in holding that the Members suffered an injury based on ?the President ?. Depriving (them) of the opportunity to give or withhold their consent (to foreign emoluments), thereby injuring them in their roles as members of Congress ? Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members ? 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives ? do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President?s acceptance of foreign emoluments.?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-wins-again-as-court-throws-out-dems-emoluments-lawsuit
Click to expand...
 
So let?s talk about Trumps Hotel that rents out rooms/floors/hosts conferences to foreign countries. Sounds like a slight conflict of interest. Like I said before, if someone just bought a drink from the bar then who cares.

(More of an issue than Biden.)

 
eyephone said:
So let?s talk about Trumps Hotel that rents out rooms/floors/hosts conferences to foreign countries. Sounds like a slight conflict of interest. Like I said before, if someone just bought a drink from the bar then who cares.

(More of an issue than Biden.)
Click to expand...

As he donates $1.2 Million legally earned dollars to charity over the last 3 years...Yah, he is enriching himself with Arabs paying for rooms at a hotel he owns...sure.

Trump donates 3rd-quarter salary to help fight opioid crisis

WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Donald Trump is donating his third-quarter salary to help tackle the nation?s opioid epidemic.

A White House official says Trump has given the $100,000 he would be paid in the quarter to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, which oversees federal public health offices and programs, including the surgeon general?s office.

The White House says the funds are being earmarked ?to continue the ongoing fight against the opioid crisis.?

Trump has made tackling the misuse of opioids an administration priority. More than 70,000 Americans died in 2017 from drug overdoses, the bulk of them involving opioids.

Trump is required to be paid, but he has pledged to donate his salary while in office to worthy causes. Trump donated his second-quarter salary to the surgeon general?s office.

https://apnews.com/0ad1e8be56e040b4ab0e85c3d13c3358
 
How do we know if it?s the correct amount? Correct me if I am wrong. But he does not want to turn over the records to show how he arrived that amount.

I guarantee you, anybody else would have to turn over the records.
 
He makes me smile and laugh every day!!

'This was photoshopped, obviously': Donald Trump blasts photographer for edited image showing him with an unflattering fake tan line - but still boasts 'the hair looks good'

In a statement to DailyMail.com, Moon admitted that he had altered the photo, saying: 'The picture was never photoshopped, but used the Apple smartphone?s photo app to adjust the color of the picture.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top