Third World Skeptical Kid

Yep, we do already, but the more witnesses the better! Can't wait for Trump's testimony. How many times will he perjure himself in the first 5 minutes on the stand?

--Mulvaney
--Bolton
--Pompeo
--Giuliani
--Trump himself

These five need to testify.

They don't need to testify. There's no criminal case here. The Supreme Court said that if the House didn't want to rush through this process they could have subpoenaed, through the court system, to have witnesses appear. They failed to get the court orders and so therefore the House is the one who rushed the process through. Of the witnesses who testified multiple Witnesses said that no crime a couple of the witnesses were like second or third-hand accounts. Furthermore, President Trump himself, the President of the Ukraine, and the transcript show that there was nothing illegal or impeachable on that tape.

The Democrats have been wanted to impeach Trump even before he took the oath of office. This is a clown show, nothing more. It was a totally partisan clown show, not only that, but three Democrats voted against impeachment, one abstained I think, and another Democrat left his party and joined the Republicans because of this charade. It's a Witch Hunt.

No Obama investigations.
No Obama Special Counsel investigations.
No Obama administration indictments.
Hillary Clinton Benghazi "Investigation"
4 years
0 indictments
0 convictions
Hillary Clinton Email "Investigation"
2 years
0 indictments
0 convictions
Trump-Russia Investigation
15 months
34 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (and counting)
3 Indictments/Charges (Companies)
5 GUILTY pleas (and counting)
4 CONVICTIONS (and counting)
Indicted: Roger Stone
Indicted: Paul Manafort
Indicted: Rick Gates
Indicted: George Papadopoulos
Indicted: Michael Flynn
Indicted: Michael Cohen
Indicted: Richard Pinedo
Indicted: Alex van der Zwaan
Indicted: Konstantin Kilimnik
Indicted: 12 Russian GRU officers
Indicted: Yevgeny Prigozhin
Indicted: Mikhail Burchik
Indicted: Aleksandra Krylova
Indicted: Anna Bogacheva
Indicted: Sergey Polozov
Indicted: Maria Bovda
Indicted: Dzheykhun Aslanov
Indicted: Vadim Podkopaev
Indicted: Irina Kaverzina
Indicted: Gleb Vasilchenko
Indicted: Internet Research Agency
Indicted: Concord Management
Guilty Plea: Michael Flynn
Guilty Plea: Michael Cohen
Guilty Plea: George Papadopolous
Guilty Plea: Richard Pinedo
Guilty Plea: Alex van der Zwaan
Guilty Plea: Rick Gates
Over 191 Criminal Charges (and counting):
Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts)
Conspiracy to launder money (2 counts)
Bank fraud (8 counts)
Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)

"Witch hunt"? Really? No -- we are still just scratching the surface when it comes to this Administration's malfeasance.

Did you pull it off of Snopes? LOL

You don't really indict yourself when you're the deep state. James Comey called Hillary Clinton's criminal gross negligence, extreme carelessness and he's since been in trouble for the lying with the fisa applications

What you guys love to call "the deep state" is really just the state, and it is the main thing holding our country together when Trump's acolytes seem intent on tearing it apart with their constant predictions of "civil war" and calls for hanging of Democrats and what not.

Look, HRC is not my gal (didn't vote for her, actually breathed a sigh of relief when she lost in '16), but the past 3 years have demonstrated Trump's total unfitness for the office.

The one thing he has going for him is the stock market but that is a very fragile foundation for success.

Do you dispute any of it?

Congress has the absolute right to issue its own subpoenas to the executive branch. And if they go unanswered, to exercise its constitutional right to impeach.

The Zelensky tape absolutely shows evidence of impeachable conduct -- attempting to bully a foreign nation into devoting judicial resources toward an investigation of a political opponent's son with little or no backing evidence. It is just the tip of the iceberg.

*Some* Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump since Day 1, and technical justification for this exists. *Even more* Democrats wanted to impeach based on the findings of the Mueller Report. However, Pelosi resisted all such calls for impeachment until the Ukraine revelations forced her hand.

Democrats have extended the benefit of the doubt to Trump for quite some time. The real question is: when will Republicans stop making excuses for this lout of a president?

Stop repeating stuff you hear on MSNBC it makes you look stupid

I don't watch MSNBC.

The Ambassador said nothing illegal happened, the president of the Ukraine said that there was no aid withheld and there was no pressure. He was also not even a candidate, rather a potential candidate's son at the time. People are not exempt from being investigated buy a foreign power because they have family members running for office.

Ukraine should have been the one to make that call. They didn't need pressure from their #1 military aid donor.

Zelensky has his own reasons now for denying there was any wrongdoing. Ukraine is still very dependent on the U.S. and wants to maintain the bipartisan support it still enjoys. However, there's plenty of other evidence to conclude that the aid was, in fact, contingent: the aid was withheld for months and it was only released when this story blew up and the public pressure started to mount.

Saying "no quid pro quo!" three times fast does not make it not a quid pro quo.

No, they're not "exempted" from investigation, but they don't get to move to the front of the queue either as a result of POTUS's personal intervention when POTUS has his own political reasons for doing so. Biden is probably going to lose the primaries, and it's going to make Trump's decision to meddle with this Ukraine stuff even dumber in retrospect.

1: Aid was not withheld, neither was it even mentioned in the transcript, this is a fabricated Lie from the left.

2. The president can withhold aid for any reason. Not illegal or impeachable.

3. Again this happened before Biden was even a candidate.

4.Joe Biden is on video admitting to quid pro quo himself. Trump said do US a favor, you might want to look into Biden's son Hunter because we have daddy on tape saying some pretty nasty things.

5. Every president in history has done things like this and only when Trump is in office is it quid pro quo.

The military aid had not been released as of the time of the call on July 25, 2019. Trump didn't have to mention this explicitly, because it wasn't necessary for him to do so. The aid wasn't released until Sept. 11, after details of this scheme had been made public. Here's a timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256

Foreign aid may permissibly be used as a bargaining chip under certain circumstances (as Biden did). However, it is an abuse of office to use foreign aid as a bargaining chip for obtaining a personal political favor (as Trump did). More here on why what Trump did was illegal: https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/

"Again this happened before Biden was even a candidate." This is just factually wrong.
--The 2020 presidential campaign of Joe Biden began on April 25, 2019, when Biden released a video announcing his candidacy in the 2020 Democratic party presidential primaries.
--Date of Zelensky call: July 25, 2019.

If "every president in history has done things like this," please cite evidence of any other president withholding aid from a foreign power on the basis of the public announcement of an investigation into a political rival's family member.

Shouldn't be hard for you to do, right? If every president has done this?

Then stop repeating stuff from any of the propaganda media owned by the Clintons.

That was just one Democrat. Impeachment never would have happened except for Ukraine.

No or little backing evidence?

Biden wanted the prosecutor fired because he was *failing* to pursue corruption cases. Not because he *was* pursuing corruption cases.

In other words, Biden's threat to withhold aid was doing the exact thing that Trump's defenders are now trying to claim that Trump did: demonstrating a genuine, generalized concern about corruption in Ukraine. Not a targeted political favor.

Hunter Biden was not on anyone's map at that point, nor should he have ever been. Because he is not corrupt.

I think the person that has a little more insight then you do.

AGAIN! There was no threat to withhold aid, again this is a fabrication from the left, totally made-up.

The Ukraine aid was, as a matter of fact, held up for months. Whether there was a "threat" by Trump or not is immaterial. Again, here is a timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256

Look buddy you're talking to a trump supporter here.

I'ma tell you right now even if Trump had the worst case scenario and told the president of the Ukraine personally to either find dirt on Biden or I'm going to withhold the aid. I couldn't care less.

The president has the right to withhold foreign aid which is our money. He has been talkin about this openly. This is no secret that he doesn't feel like giving aid to people who are not going to appreciate America.

There was no discussion of aid in the transcript. It's a public transcript you can read it or listen to it for yourself.

Even if there was aid withheld, it's irrelevant because you cannot tie the withholding of aid to a mutual favor wherein there was no pressure.

And even so it's not illegal or impeachable to ask a foreign power to investigate a potential candidate's son or forgo aid.

Again they aid was not withheld. Ukraine received the aid. You cannot tie any delay of aid to quid pro quo.

Three Democrats voted not to impeach him and one even came to our side. It was totally a Witch Hunt, partisan and nature. This is why no formal charges were brought against the president. First it was collusion, then it was quid pro quo, then it was bribery, then it was extortion, now it's abuse of power which is so vague.

The worst case scenario you have is that the president temporarily withheld aid for a multitude of reasons and also asked the Ukraine to look into a potential candidate's son. The reason why anyone asks another person to investigate anything is to find out rathor or not allegations of wrong doing are legitimate. Donald Trump asking another power to investigate anyone, and failing to produce evidence is irrelevant. The president has a right to do that and all presidents have done that.

Why would I ask a president to resign for asking the President of Ukraine to... do "US" [both] a favor. You might want to look into a potential candidate's son, we have a lot going on in our country right now. ?

That's not exactly alarming. Remember when Obama told Russian officials that he couldn't talk about certain things right now and that he would have more flexibility after the election. That doesn't sound fishy to you but what Trump said did?

Like I said, even if Trump said, do this or I'm goin to with hold funds, not exactly it illegal or impeachable. That didn't even happen though.

The fact that the Ukraine aid was eventually released after months of delay and only after details of this scheme were made public is not all that convincing to me.

I did not vote for Trump, but I preferred him slightly over HRC, believe it or not. I thought that if he spoke loudly against the Iraq War and was prepared to run the country "like a business" that he could be good for us.

I extended Trump the benefit of the doubt for longer than most of my liberal friends, including throughout the Mueller investigation. I did not believe there was enough solid evidence from the Mueller report to directly implicate Trump himself.

This Ukraine stuff, however, is ridiculous and unacceptable. It's everything the Mueller Report hinted at, times 100. You still haven't shown me evidence that any other president has done anything remotely like this.

It's obvious you're a Trump supporter. I get that, and that's fine. But: I believe patriotic Republicans at this point would call for Trump to resign and Pence to step up (assuming he wasn't involved in any of this, which I believe is the case based on the evidence I've read).