Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the remedy they envisioned if a President commits bribery: impeachment by the House followed by a Senate trial and removal from office if guilty.

He didn't commit bribery

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the remedy they envisioned if a President commits bribery: impeachment by the House followed by a Senate trial and removal from office if guilty.

---

Ah....

I see this is the new talking point. Yeah...that's the ticket...

Except of course he didnt commit bribery and he wont be removed by the Senate.

Money Ag said:

---

He didn't commit bribery

---

If he did, so did Congress.

Been away from this thread for a while. Now it's bribery? This is hilarious. What's next on the libs list?

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the remedy they envisioned if a President commits bribery: impeachment by the House followed by a Senate trial and removal from office if guilty.

---

I disagree with you. About 99.9%. I also do not believe that the majority of Americans are naive enough to think that.

And, lastly, when I say that let's say everything is true, I was specifically referring to this quid pro quo thing. I dont think anyone is taking bribery too seriously.

That's it. I'm outta here for a while. Have a good day.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the remedy they envisioned if a President commits bribery: impeachment by the House followed by a Senate trial and removal from office if guilty.

---

Why is this troll allowed to exist here?

Rockdoc said:

---

Been away from this thread for a while. Now it's bribery? This is hilarious. What's next on the libs list?

---

Apparently, the lethal military aid that Congress approved, and that they were mad Trump had put on hold for 55 days, ultimately releasing it within the time limit of September 30 (fiscal year), is now a bribe for nothing as there are no Ukrainian investigations targeting the 2016 election, CrowdStrike nor Burisma that were started since the July 25th phone call.

I am having a harder time following the other thing that's been thrown out there, extortion, as that is generally the opposite of a bribe.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear on the remedy they envisioned if a President commits bribery: impeachment by the House followed by a Senate trial and removal from office if guilty.

---

Did the writers of the constitution envision different standards for different parties? Do you honestly believe that a Democrat president would be held to this standard?

Where were you calling for impeachment during Obama's reign of lawlessness?

Amazing. There's not a lot left unless they claim he had someone murdered. Things are moving fast and furious (not a pun).

aggiehawg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Been away from this thread for a while. Now it's bribery? This is hilarious. What's next on the libs list?

---

Apparently, the lethal military aid that Congress approved, and that they were mad Trump had put on hold for 55 days, ultimately releasing it within the time limit of September 30 (fiscal year), is now a bribe for nothing as there are no Ukrainian investigations targeting the 2016 election, CrowdStrike nor Burisma that were started since the July 25th phone call.

I am having a harder time following the other thing that's been thrown out there, extortion, as that is generally the opposite of a bribe.

---

Since I'm reading this while watching the tu-ISU game, and the Aburn-GA game, I think the next logical crime will be "pillage".

Besides, tu and pillage often go together.

Using Mark Zaid as a source is like using Creepy Porn Lawyer.

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm telling you right now. Your argument has to be that investing Burisma and Hunter Biden was not in the national interest. Not only is this a weak argument, it's already been refuted by several witnesses called by schiff.

---

The state department continues to urge Ukraine to investigate Zlochevsky. Rudy's "investigation" findings were turned over to Trump's state department and dismissed as non credible(shocker).

Trump wanted a public pronouncement, a publicity stunt, that made it appear the Ukrainians independently found evidence of corruption by the Bidens, and that Trump had not forced it.

This is banana republic ****** and not in the national interest. It only serves Trump's selfish interest.

---

The state department isn't a law enforcement arm. Their opinion on the evidence doesn't matter. The public announcement and Ukraine investigation aligns Ukraine with our DOJ and foreign policy. All legal bud. Or do you think we have NEVER pressured other countries to make public statements before?

Not shocking you only want to see things through your lense. But you have been wrong almost this entire time. Maybe if you were discussing relevant things a month ago, like I had, you have some credibility on the subject.

---

It was not official policy which is why he was doing it in secret through trusted back channels and gave in on the scheme after getting caught.

The Ukrainians consistently rebuffed him, they have nothing on the Bidens. The public announcement is the tell, it had to appear they independently found something credible.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Ukrainians consistently rebuffed him, they have nothing on the Bidens. The public announcement is the tell, it had to appear they independently found something credible.

---

You mean Biden confessing to it on tape in 2018? That something?

---

Must have just been 'another' slip of the tongue/mental gaffe by 'the big groper', Uncle Joe. Someone needs to dust the US Treasury's cookie jar for his & Hunter's prints.

Gary Johnson said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm telling you right now. Your argument has to be that investing Burisma and Hunter Biden was not in the national interest. Not only is this a weak argument, it's already been refuted by several witnesses called by schiff.

---

The state department continues to urge Ukraine to investigate Zlochevsky. Rudy's "investigation" findings were turned over to Trump's state department and dismissed as non credible(shocker).

Trump wanted a public pronouncement, a publicity stunt, that made it appear the Ukrainians independently found evidence of corruption by the Bidens, and that Trump had not forced it.

This is banana republic ****** and not in the national interest. It only serves Trump's selfish interest.

---

The state department isn't a law enforcement arm. Their opinion on the evidence doesn't matter. The public announcement and Ukraine investigation aligns Ukraine with our DOJ and foreign policy. All legal bud. Or do you think we have NEVER pressured other countries to make public statements before?

Not shocking you only want to see things through your lense. But you have been wrong almost this entire time. Maybe if you were discussing relevant things a month ago, like I had, you have some credibility on the subject.

---

It was not official policy which is why he was doing it in secret through trusted back channels and gave in on the scheme after getting caught.

The Ukrainians consistently rebuffed him, they have nothing on the Bidens. The public announcement is the tell, it had to appear they independently found something credible.

---

Hahahahahaha the president sets official foreign policy, not unelected ambassadors. Strike one.

Ukraine's resistance is exactly why a public announcement was vital. They can't sandbag an investigation they announce to the world. Welcome to reality.

Rockdoc said:

---

Been away from this thread for a while. Now it's bribery? This is hilarious. What's next on the libs list?

---

Libs are funny.

When the name no longer rings true, just change it.

"Man-made Global Warming"....until it starts cooling, then "Man-made climate change".

"Quid pro quo", until that falls flat, then "bribery" or "intimidation".

This whole thing would be funny if it weren't so GD sad. A bunch of lying morons on the left.

I would love to hear the hot take from affluent private Ukrainian citizens in the know on Burisma and corruption culture in Ukraine.

1) What would they think about a very simple POTUS conversation about the concern for what everyone recognizes as, at the very least, an "appearance of conflict"?

2) What would they think about removing an elected POTUS over the released transcript of a benign phone convo about rooting out corruption?

I would also like to hear Putin's take as well, which would probably include laughter and couple good points about how insignificant the whole thing is.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So, to clarify, even if it is all true, why would we support the Democrats? You ask whether in the impeachment hearing or the next election as if this is all in a vacuum. They are the same thing.

---

No, they're not the same thing, and most Americans can discern the difference between the two. One is an impeachment process, the other is a Presidential election in November 2020.

---

They ARE the same thing, because the same soft coup that is trying to remove Trump would turn on Pence next. More than a few Democrats and a talking head or two of theirs has made that clear. You are still not getting it -- when you know the other party is evil, why would you give them any kind of break or give in? That's all the right has been doing. Romney was your chance to have a candidate to treat as nice as he did in turn. But we have ol' Reid right there on the Senate floor saying "I lied" and basically so what and the water-carrier MSM going right along with demonizing him. And this right after all the fraud and lies of Benghazi. This is where it is at.

Now the lunatic Left wants to impeach Barr---for his speech. It is high time the GOP stop doing things the Democrats want them to do. Do as the Democrats do -- serve only their own. Fortunately, that seems to be underway.

Quote:

---

If Trump committed bribery and is removed from office and barred by the Senate from running again, then the R's will nominate a different candidate. Someone like Nikki Haley would have a good shot at winning. Especially if the Dem nominee ends up being Warren.

---

She would definitely have a chance, but there is no reason for the GOP to cater to this farce --everything the Democrats have done since 2008 has been in bad faith.

You haven't dealt with the fact the Democrats declared this virtual insugency in January 2017 -- hell, right after election night in some ways. I guess just have to agree to disagree. If you are so convinced President Trump's lifting America up is tyranny of some kind that is a pov I supposed;, maybe things are just down to where one has to pick which tyranny type has to settle for. There is nothing left of the DC pre-1999. We can vote for the one prefer. Not going for quasi-Maoist-socialist, anti-liberty and anti-capitalism and Western Civ. Even the Soviets probably would not have abolished energy and cars if they had won the Cold War.

Expel your current House leadership, open border Pelosi, Schiff, all the liars of the "resistance" and "if you like your doctor can keep them" phase of frauds, nominate Tulsi and a non socialist or race-talker as VP, and can at least consider the Democratic Party as possibly looking out for just ordinary things and the country again.

This thread gets updated as fast as football game thread

I wonder if the Republican lawmakers consult with people like John Solomon, Sara Carter, or Rush. They need to have live feeds to all of their laptops so all of the people who are super plugged in to what is going can submit questions in real time.

Quote:

---

Hahahahahaha the president sets official foreign policy, not unelected ambassadors. Strike one.

---

Strike one is correct. In tandem with Congress. Extortion for personal gain is not official US foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Ukraine's resistance is exactly why a public announcement was vital. They can't sandbag an investigation they announce to the world. Welcome to reality.

---

Zelinskiy would have loved to give Trump exactly what he wanted had there been any truth to the rumors. Sorry your retahrded 350 lb orange tub of lard got duped by a conspiracy theory only an imbecile would entertain.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

Hahahahahaha the president sets official foreign policy, not unelected ambassadors. Strike one.

---

Strike one is correct. In tandem with Congress. Extortion for personal gain is not official US foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Ukraine's resistance is exactly why a public announcement was vital. They can't sandbag an investigation they announce to the world. Welcome to reality.

---

Zelinskiy would have loved to give Trump exactly what he wanted had there been any truth to the rumors. Sorry your retahrded 350 lb orange tub of lard got duped by a conspiracy theory only an imbecile would entertain.

---

You are better then this Gary.

It may turn out that everything with Biden was on the up and up, but it's extremely reasonable to be very suspicious of the whole thing.

I really don't understand why you are so desperate to carry water for the Bidens.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I really don't understand why you are so desperate to carry water for the Bidens.

---

He is just being a concerned Libertarian

Gary Johnson said:

---

Extortion for personal gain is not official US foreign policy.

---

Unless of course your a Democrat or your name is Biden.

Not at this point and IDGAF about the Bidens. This has been under the microscope for 5 years and it's nothing more than a fringe debunked conspiracy theory at this point.

Trump has always been a dumb, bumbling, corrupt, lying, cheating, thieving fraud.

mugwurt said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I really don't understand why you are so desperate to carry water for the Bidens.

---

He is just being a concerned Libertarian

---

I would not think Libertarians would like socialist Democrats --- it goes the opposite direction from their take on economic and market forces. Kind of baffling.

Yes it's always been baffling with this particular poster.