Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this? [Edited on 9/26/2019 by gina]

You (all Americans) should know this, but the short answer is the constitution prohibits a president using his office for personal gain. Here, POTUS is asking a FOREIGN head of state to dig up dirt on his leading political rival to help him in the 2020 election. What's implied in the conversation by the US being a "great friend" is the amount of $$$ that has been earmarked for Ukraine but not yet delivered. Could be a quid pro quo or bribe.

The best explanation w/o a lot of legalese is this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-crimes-explai/explainer-impeachment-depends-on-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-what-are-they-idUSKBN1WA288

The article also explains that IMPEACHMENT isn't REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; it's a trial. That term is constantly misused.

Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

What are the Democrats complaining about that they are considering impeachment proceedings.

Were you present in your Government classes in high school?

Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

What are the Democrats complaining about that they are considering impeachment proceedings.

Were you present in your Government classes in high school?

I'm thinking she was home skuled.

Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

What are the Democrats complaining about that they are considering impeachment proceedings.

Were you present in your Government classes in high school?

I'm thinking she was home skuled.

Could be, since school is a giant conspiracy supported by the Masonics...or something. Although she does seem proud of that Trump University degree.

The best explanation w/o a lot of legalese is this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-crimes-explai/explainer-impeachment-depends-on-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-what-are-they-idUSKBN1WA288

The article also explains that IMPEACHMENT isn't REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; it's a trial. That term is constantly misused.

Thx, am better informed now - looked up info on Andrew Johnson’s & Bill Clinton’s impeachments too - both were indeed impeached but stayed in office - you impeach first, then it goes to a vote

Any-way, all signs point to a vitriol-polluted mudslinging fest thruout the impeachment/2020 campaign - they usually are but a Real bottom-feeding frenzy shapes up in this one - one senses an anxiety on the part of his enemies, to remove Trump from office prior to the election

[Edited on 9/27/2019 by Stephen]

Any-way, all signs point to a vitriol-polluted mudslinging fest thruout the impeachment/2020 campaign -
[Edited on 9/27/2019 by Stephen]

Impeachment is more civilized than anything we've seen in this administration. First, it's a legal proceeding presided over by a SCOTUS justice - probably the Chief Justice as in Clinton's. There are a limited # of congress members who act as "prosecutors." POTUS has his own legal team (probably excluding Guiliani). There are rules of evidence. Assuming the justice runs the proceedings w/a firm hand, there shouldn't be any of the crap that we've seen in public hearings & it will move along fairly quickly (about 2 weeks).

I'd rather see an impeachment that's tightly controlled & limited to a single issue than this unfettered mudslingingfest we've had for the past 2 years. It'll be a nice break before campaigning goes into high gear.

Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

What are the Democrats complaining about that they are considering impeachment proceedings.

Were you present in your Government classes in high school?

I am NOT a morning person and history class was early in the morning.

Now can anyone tell me what is wrong with this? [Edited on 9/26/2019 by gina]

You (all Americans) should know this, but the short answer is the constitution prohibits a president using his office for personal gain. Here, POTUS is asking a FOREIGN head of state to dig up dirt on his leading political rival to help him in the 2020 election. What's implied in the conversation by the US being a "great friend" is the amount of $$$ that has been earmarked for Ukraine but not yet delivered. Could be a quid pro quo or bribe.

The best explanation w/o a lot of legalese is this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-crimes-explai/explainer-impeachment-depends-on-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-what-are-they-idUSKBN1WA288

The article also explains that IMPEACHMENT isn't REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; it's a trial. That term is constantly misused.

I don't think it was to dig up dirt for future events such as the 2020 elections, he was asking about 2016 stuff, I think so he could shock Biden at the pre-election debates since you know they would try to upset him with all kinds of things.

I think he held back the payment to the Ukraine so it would not look like he was paying for information since they were two separate issues. If he asks the Ukraine to provide info. and then gives them money immediately it looks a little collusionary like a bribe. But he was not bribing them. It seems like he just wanted to know if they found any irregularities since Biden's son was financially invested in a Ukranian company and the Democrats gave him so much flack about China and Ivanka's business dealings there, as well as the accusations of him and Putin being too friendly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

Additionally the whistleblower was a "CIA Official".

"While it is not clear how the officer became aware that Ms. Elwood had shared the information, he concluded that the C.I.A. was not taking his allegations seriously." "But as White House, C.I.A. and Justice Department officials were examining the accusations, the C.I.A. officer who had lodged them anonymously grew concerned after learning that Ms. Elwood had contacted the White House, according to two people familiar with the matter. While it is not clear how the officer became aware that Ms. Elwood had shared the information, he concluded that the C.I.A. was not taking his allegations seriously.

Questions:
1) Now we know that the whistleblower was a "he".

2) How did he [whistleblower] know Elwood shared the information with the White House?

The whistle-blower was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity, and has since returned to the C.I.A.

3) Someone should run a check on who with CIA Officer Status was also on detail work at the White House. how many people can there be with both those designations?

"That played a factor in his decision to become a whistle-blower, they said. And about two weeks after first submitting his anonymous accusations, he decided to file a whistle-blower complaint to Mr. Atkinson, a step that offers special legal protections, unlike going to a general counsel."

The officer was savy enough to take that step that offerred "special legal protections".

"The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity."

So, how did he know about the phone call if he was not privvy to communications/phone calls with foreign leaders?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a “discussion ongoing” with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain."

Question: Why were they coming to whistleblower to tell him these things? What were the responsibilities of his "detail" work that they would come to him with information?

"Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call — a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine” call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call."

Question: He knows how many people were there THAT day in the room, and he knows what is "customary" during the foreign phone calls, but that is NOT part of his job, and he is not in any communications capacity as previously stated.

"In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call."

Question: Why were all these people coming to him, telling him these things?

" I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above."

Question: Why was he so special that he was the only non White House official to receive a readout of the call? Why were people coming to him with this?

"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

"White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials".

"Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-york-times-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-153723016.html
whistleblower's attorney Andrew Bakaj.

Who else has he represented or provided counsel to? This whole thing is one big smear job you have to look under the layers to get to who is doing this covertly.

COMMENTS: Whistleblower speaks about events from April through August, meaning he was in the White House during that time on his "detail work". Anyone who was fired/resigned who may have had access to information about those phone calls, NSA, etc.

OR, the rogue part of the CIA, there are 3 separate groups within the agency, one beholden to the new world order, one who believes they are patriots serving their country, and the other who just want a pension and as little grief as possible they are corruptible and bribeable but not inherently evil. It is possible the new world order contingent is 'burning' the President. They use clandestine tactics, try to ruin people's lives. Remember early on his presidency they tried to come up with dirt on his children, that is one of their tactics, isolate you. They separate you from your support system, then dig in doing psychological warfare on you, when that doesn't work, they get your fired from your job, ruin you financially, then use other people, convincing them they are doing good to mess you up. They tried to use the FBI to mess him up, Mueller, Comey, but because of the power in the position that he has, they were unsuccessful, so now they try this tactic.

I hate to say it, but Trump needs some really great lawyers like Jeffrey Epstein had or other Republicans who have had big problems. This is a big problem because they are making it one.

AND the other disenchanted people, Democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chelsea-clinton-donald-trump-greatest-scam-tweet-004215313.html

[Edited on 9/27/2019 by gina]

Trump does not take crap. Another

President Trump on Friday demanded House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) “immediately” resign from Congress. In a series of tweets early Friday, Trump accused Schiff of lying to Congress and “fraudulently” reciting a version of the call that made it “sound horrible” and made the president appear “guilty.”

“He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty,” Trump tweeted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463344-trump-demands-schiff-resign

Now they are subpoening Mike Pompeo!

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry-09-27-2019/

Trump's adversaries who want impeachment. There are at least 223 House Democrats -- according to a CNN count -- who publicly stated support for impeachment proceedings.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

and some old familiar faces too.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/sep/27/trump-ukraine-scandal-hillary-clinton-says-us-president-endangered-the-country-video

[Edited on 9/27/2019 by gina]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/sep/27/donald-trump-ukraine-live-news-latest-us-politics

And they are not stopping with the impeachment desires. They want to get in a little disarmament of the American people also.

"The National Rifle Association (NRA) has acted as a “foreign asset” in providing Russian officials access to US political organizations, according to an investigation by Senate Democrats. The results of the investigation were published by the Oregon senator Ron Wyden on Friday. The report also alleges that the NRA may have broken tax laws by using donated funds to further its officers’ business interests. "

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/nra-russia-foreign-asset-senate-report-investigation

Remarks: It is just beyond the pale.

I don't think it was to dig up dirt for future events such as the 2020 elections, he was asking about 2016 stuff, I think so he could shock Biden at the pre-election debates since you know they would try to upset him with all kinds of things.

Regardless, Trump used the power of his office to ask a foreign leader for help in shaping the US elections. Do you think this is ok?

All the other stuff you posted regarding the whistleblower is nothing but a distraction. It is clear Trump colluded with a foreign leader to influence an American election, and then either he or someone else in his administration knew it was bad and tried to bury it on a classified server. You can decide for yourself if it was a quid pro quo or not, but regardless it was abuse of power. The fact that he got his personal attorney involved instead of the DOJ should tell you this was for political purposes and not a legitimate investigation. I don't see how anyone can defend this as appropriate use of power.

The fact that he got his personal attorney involved instead of the DOJ should tell you this was for political purposes and not a legitimate investigation. I don't see how anyone can defend this as appropriate use of power.

Think about this. Who heads the DOJ, and what role has he played in the Trump Admin? Mr. Barr is a fixer for Trump - no different than Rudy G. and Michael Cohen. Barr has given cover at every opportunity for Trump. Remember when he auditioned for the job he got. He's doing a great job as another of Trump's personal attorneys. The quicker Barr is run out of town the closer the DOJ can get back to real leadership and integrity.

Think about this. Who heads the DOJ, and what role has he played in the Trump Admin? Mr. Barr is a fixer for Trump - no different than Rudy G. and Michael Cohen.

Barr is Trump's guy but his role as AG confers the perception of legitimacy. Were this a legit agenda, a foreign government wouldn't be directed to the POTUS personal attorney.

The quicker Barr is run out of town the closer the DOJ can get back to real leadership and integrity.

As w/all things Trump, he's disrupted the presidency and government agencies/departments so much that the best we can hope for is a new normal that isn't quite as corrupt and more civil than what has become the status quo. There's no going back to real leadership & integrity - Trump successfully cleaned house on that. So far, I don't see anyone interested in or capable of restoring respect.

With regard to respect, is this appropriate for a Congress member to do?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rashida-tlaib-impeach-the-mf-tshirts-trump-124707067.html

The opposition is not playing nice, so what can Trump do? Be politically correct and Presidential when they are doing these things?

I read that Mitch McConnell has said if the House presents Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, then the Senate legally has to immediately go to trial. In an impeachment hearing the Senate is the jury. HOWEVER, McConnell could call a vote on a Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment. If he has the balls to do so.

Sean Hannity said on Thursday, "the radical, delusional Democratic Part and the Media Mob, their allies in crime have no descended into complete and utter madness.

Trump has an ally, Senate Lindsey Graham:

"In America, you can't even get a parking ticket based on hearsay testimony, but you can impeach a President? I certainly hope not"

Then there was this pesky phone call on a Jet Blue airplane where Senator Graham reportedly told Jared Kushner that Biden's son, Hunter was on the Board of Director's for Burisma, a Ukranian Oil Company and was being paid $50,000 a year for this.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/09/28/607384/Graham-rushes-to-save-Trump-from-removal

Now, does that mean Biden etal were influencing the 2016 election but came up short when it came to preventing Trump from winning?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39945744

This is the process for impeachment.

Face The Nation broadcast today with Lindsey Graham. TODAY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-of-face-the-nation-on-september-29-2019/

On this "Face the Nation" broadcast moderated by Margaret Brennan:

Senator Lindsey Graham (read more)
Senator Chris Murphy (read more)
Rudy Giuliani (read more)
Representative Will Hurd (read more)
Representative Terri Sewell (read more)
Panelists: Paula Reid, Michael Morell, Rachael Bade, Adam Entous

[Edited on 9/29/2019 by gina]

Trump has an ally, Senate Lindsey Graham:

"In America, you can't even get a parking ticket based on hearsay testimony, but you can impeach a President? I certainly hope not"

Then there was this pesky phone call on a Jet Blue airplane where Senator Graham reportedly told Jared Kushner that Biden's son, Hunter was on the Board of Director's for Burisma, a Ukranian Oil Company and was being paid $50,000 a year for this.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/09/28/607384/Graham-rushes-to-save-Trump-from-removal

Now, does that mean Biden etal were influencing the 2016 election but came up short when it came to preventing Trump from winning?

As far as Trump goes, we are way beyond hearsay now. But nice try for a distraction.

As far as Biden goes, there is not even hearsay of wrongdoing, only circumstantial speculation.

This is the process for impeachment.

Most of us know this from school, Clinton's impeachment (and/or the prep for Nixon's), and the numerous articles/stories that have been published about the process. In response to your starting this thread, I gave you a link that explained why the phone call was an impeachable offense.

It's kind of insulting for you to assume that we don't know basic civics & need a link to a foreign (BBC Canada/US) site on a music forum to educate us. Save your time & energy.

Let’s explore this scenario. Senate acquits Trump and he wins in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the Democratic nomination versus Pence or Don Jr (god forbid) or whoever. AOC chooses Omar as running mate. AOC begins trashing Republicans, calling them all racist white supremists, and says on live TV, “Iran, if you are listening, I hope you can find those Mike Pence emails. The Shahs will be rewarded when I win.” Then after AOC wins, she asks Venezuela for a “favor” to investigate Mitch McConnell.

If you want to prevent this, like I do, then we need to reject and condemn what Trump has done, and put our political biases second.

But Trump says this is "The Greatest Witch Hunt in American History". And we know he speaks truth and nothing but the truth. He talks about corrupt reporters. Nobody knows corruption better than Trump because he lives it and leads by it on a daily basis.

At this point, I can't help but to feel bad for him...

Don't waste your time feeling bad for him.

The highchair king has a heart of stone.

Let’s explore this scenario. Senate acquits Trump and he wins in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the Democratic nomination versus Pence or Don Jr (god forbid) or whoever. AOC chooses Omar as running mate. AOC begins trashing Republicans, calling them all racist white supremists, and says on live TV, “Iran, if you are listening, I hope you can find those Mike Pence emails. The Shahs will be rewarded when I win.” Then after AOC wins, she asks Venezuela for a “favor” to investigate Mitch McConnell.

If you want to prevent this, like I do, then we need to reject and condemn what Trump has done, and put our political biases second.

Agreed, but no one seems to be able to figure out why Republican congressmen simply won't break away. It's like he's holding them all hostage. Two interesting attempts to explain:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Trump has given them another chance to break away. Why won’t they take it?

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/opinion/republicans-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
America is better than Donald Trump. Republicans, the time has come.

Let’s explore this scenario. Senate acquits Trump and he wins in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the Democratic nomination versus Pence or Don Jr (god forbid) or whoever. AOC chooses Omar as running mate. AOC begins trashing Republicans, calling them all racist white supremists, and says on live TV, “Iran, if you are listening, I hope you can find those Mike Pence emails. The Shahs will be rewarded when I win.” Then after AOC wins, she asks Venezuela for a “favor” to investigate Mitch McConnell.

If you want to prevent this, like I do, then we need to reject and condemn what Trump has done, and put our political biases second.

Agreed, but no one seems to be able to figure out why Republican congressmen simply won't break away. It's like he's holding them all hostage. Two interesting attempts to explain:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Trump has given them another chance to break away. Why won’t they take it?

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/opinion/republicans-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
America is better than Donald Trump. Republicans, the time has come.

They'll continue to enable him and ignore his high crimes and treason as long as the majority of voting Republicans support him. They're afraid of his base removing them from office in not only a Republican primary but possibly a general election as well.

This is why Trump always holds some sort of corny rally immediately following the latest revelation of his latest illegal act or colossal policy failure. It's meant to remind the Republicans running for reelection in 2020 that he still has support within the Republican party as a whole. Essentially they're afraid of losing their jobs above saving the nation from a crook and traitor.

This is why Trump always holds some sort of corny rally immediately following the latest revelation of his latest illegal act or colossal policy failure. It's meant to remind the Republicans running for reelection in 2020 that he still has support within the Republican party as a whole.

That's the only conclusion I can draw as well which means 1) the representatives overestimate the actual # of Trump supporters not just rally attendees or 2) there actually ARE that many Americans who think having a mafia don is preferable to having a president.

Essentially they're afraid of losing their jobs above saving the nation from a crook and traitor.

Not a statesman among them; the best they can do is use weak words like "troubling." I keep going back to Nixon where Republicans didn't let one man take the country's 3-branch structure, integrity & global position down & pressured him into resigning. Even he had the dignity not to want to be cited for criminal conduct.

This is why Trump always holds some sort of corny rally immediately following the latest revelation of his latest illegal act or colossal policy failure. It's meant to remind the Republicans running for reelection in 2020 that he still has support within the Republican party as a whole.

That's the only conclusion I can draw as well which means 1) the representatives overestimate the actual # of Trump supporters not just rally attendees or 2) there actually ARE that many Americans who think having a mafia don is preferable to having a president.

Essentially they're afraid of losing their jobs above saving the nation from a crook and traitor.

Not a statesman among them; the best they can do is use weak words like "troubling." I keep going back to Nixon where Republicans didn't let one man take the country's 3-branch structure, integrity & global position down & pressured him into resigning. Even he had the dignity not to want to be cited for criminal conduct.

They were behind him up until the tapes appeared.

Once the obvious smoking gun was public knowledge they jumped ship.

Let’s explore this scenario. Senate acquits Trump and he wins in 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becomes the Democratic nomination versus Pence or Don Jr (god forbid) or whoever. AOC chooses Omar as running mate. AOC begins trashing Republicans, calling them all racist white supremists, and says on live TV, “Iran, if you are listening, I hope you can find those Mike Pence emails. The Shahs will be rewarded when I win.” Then after AOC wins, she asks Venezuela for a “favor” to investigate Mitch McConnell.

If you want to prevent this, like I do, then we need to reject and condemn what Trump has done, and put our political biases second.

Well, that is a completely different scenario because a Democrat is doing it, so of course it is illegal then. Trump hugs the flag and is a great rich American, so of course he did nothing wrong.