Complete nonsense above. There’s always corruption in Ukraine. He never claimed the corruption had any influence on American moneys. You made that up out of thin air. What does a gas company have to do with mility aid? That’s not even a plausible defense. Hunter Biden is exhibit a and Crowdstrike is exhibit b that halting the aid was political.
you lefties typically have trouble distinguishing what your desire to be true with facts. Trump very much has claimed that this was about an investigation into corruption. That is a valid defense to the claim by democrats he broke ethical rules or the law because he was doing what he did for personal gain. Whether Trump assertion (defense) need to be true or if it is true would be determined by the trier of fact... for the later and the trier of fact or the judge for the former... the media's slant does not matter your opinion does not matter nor does mine. you might not believe him I might not believe him But - the dems charged him with doing something that is not fraud or a crime or really anything. they are charging him with "abuse of power" (without a crime alleged is even be impeachable... ) If Trump proffers legitimate reasons... There are many constitutional reasons why we would not want to question his proffered reason. If you are going to go after him for abuse of power shouldn't a crime have to be delineated. At the moment based on the lack of evidence of any crime I would say the democrats case is pretty much a sham Its... almost a thought crime based because democrats don't like the way Trump thinks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...that-corruption-concerns-held-up-ukraine-aid/ “We have an obligation to investigate corruption. And that’s what it was.” — President Trump, in an interview on “Hannity” on Fox News, Oct. 21, 2019 “There were two reasons that we held up the aid. We talked about this at some length. The first one was the rampant corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine — by the way, Chris, it’s so bad in Ukraine that in 2014, Congress passed a law making it, making us, requiring us, to make sure that corruption was moving in the right direction. So, corruption is a big deal, everyone knows it. The president was also concerned about whether or not other nations, specifically European nations, were helping with foreign aid to the Ukraine as well.” — White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Oct. 20, 2019 Trump and Mulvaney say they held up $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine this year because of concerns about corruption. now the post goes on to try and claim those defenses are disingenuous...but that determination is for the trier of fact. not you. not the media
Once, they plead the fifth, it is over. The court of public opinion will know the Bidens are corrupt and Joe Biden will be finished. I wonder if Joe Biden will instead, vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment without calling any new witnesses if the Senate puts it up to a vote. He knows he will be called as a witness under penalty of perjury. Would be hilarious if he voted to acquit President Donald Trump and dismiss the articles of impeachment on the spot.
Would be nice to agree with you, but sadly, I cannot. Just look at the impeachment sham currently ongoing and how the DimTards are trying to influence the court of public opinion re Trump. And there are plenty of DimTards who believe them.
if biden were not running for president would it have been OK for Trump to ask that Ukraine look into biden's corruption or crowdstrike? Of course it would. I heard - I think schiff - on the radio today trying to spin hard that because this involved Trump it was not about foreign policy or corruption. He spent a great deal of time trying to support the premise that because this touched on Trump it must be personal and about national security or corruption. His argument is not logically sound. Since Trump was a candidate of course an investigation into election influence would impact him. And Biden brought this on himself by bragging that he influenced their govt by leveraging funding. Biden pretty much created the impetus for an investigation into his corruption by bragging about it.
Majority of Americans can see it for the sham, kangaroo court type impeachment hearings the House conducted. Not to say the low IQ Democrats cannot be convinced of anything because they will believe anything just because they hate President Donald Trump and want to remove him.
The dissonance is stunning... They are trying to impeach Trump when Biden openly admits he withheld congressionally allocated aid funds in order to force the firing of a prosecutor investigating the company where his son had corruptly secured employment. It offends my sense of fairness. Joe Biden is corrupt and Democrats seem ok with it. If Joe is elected President and the House turns Republican you might see impeachment investigations in the House into Biden corruption. How can this be good for the country?
Republican officials attacking Trump’s impeachment appear stumped when asked a simple question And when the Republicans were faced with a simple question at a press conference from Courthouse News reporter Adam Klasfeld about the upcoming Senate trial, which most Republicans hope to keep short and free from any witness testimony, the Republican officials were stumped. “You’ve all prosecuted a lot of cases,” he said. “Have you ever prosecuted a case without witness testimony or discovery of evidence?” At that question, all seven officials froze, apparently unsure of who should answer. Eventually, one of them stood forward and criticized the Democrats for having a “fishing expedition” and not meeting the evidentiary standards. But he never answered the question, which goes to the central matter of why there should be testimony in the Senate trial, regardless of what the House did. Of course, Democrats do believe they met the standard necessary to impeach the president; they want more evidence and testimony because they’re clearly aware that Republican senators haven’t been convinced to vote to remove the president, and they want to make the case as clearly and thoroughly to the American people as possible.
That's not their job. The house had every opportunity to present their case. That's what they're doing. They're responsible for producing actual evidence instead of just droning on and on with accusation after accusation. Doesn't work.
Have you ever prosecuted a case where the prosecution gets to decide who the defense wants and should be allowed for witnesses? Is that what you call a fair trial? I see. Well let's save that question until the issue of Hunter and Swampblower comes up next week or whenever. We can revisit it. Be scratching your head in the meantime.