Why The Democrats Are Right

[christiefan915]

Democrats ignored facts that are central to the matter:
The call itself
The statements from the Ukrainians

"I want nothing, no quid pro quo"

This is like deckaring there to be a hurricane because its windy while ignoring all the fans running on high and no rain.
Youve got less than nothing.

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo. Which one of the two is lying?

[canceled.2021.2]

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo. Which one of the two is lying?

Doesn’t matter. The words quid pro quo or bribery aren’t in articles of impeachment so I guess the democrats don’t think they can prove either one

[RB 60]

It took a while...but I am glad I made the change, Cypress.

You switched parties? It's about time!!

Hello Frank

[Celticguy]

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo. Which one of the two is lying?

As what Trump said was heard by others, it aint him.

[christiefan915]

As what Trump said was heard by others, it aint him.

Same with Mulvaney.

QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?
MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.
____________
QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.
MULVANEY: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/u...d-pro-quo.html

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Same with Mulvaney.

QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?
MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.
____________
QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.
MULVANEY: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/u...d-pro-quo.html

but they paid the money. you lose.

[PoliTalker]

Hello christiefan915,

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo. Which one of the two is lying?

Yeah, we were supposed to just get over it.

I don't know about you but if I see the Constitution being attacked and the Presidency being turned into a dictatorship I am not going to just get over it.

[PoliTalker]

Hi Frank,

Sounds like a plan.

I imagine there could be disagreement from all three branches, though.

Well we have to have some way to deal with a sue-happy President. If not my suggestion then I'm all ears to solve the problem. But of course 44% of the nation doesn't even think it's a problem. No doubt they would be raising a huge ruckus of Obama had done this, but since it's Trump it's OK.

[christiefan915]

Hello christiefan915,

Yeah, we were supposed to just get over it.

I don't know about you but if I see the Constitution being attacked and the Presidency being turned into a dictatorship I am not going to just get over it.

I agree with you 100%. The least we can do is to call out and refute the endless stream of lies coming from this administration. I wish we could do more.

[PoliTalker]

Hello christiefan915,

I agree with you 100%. The least we can do is to call out and refute the endless stream of lies coming from this administration. I wish we could do more.

I am thinking a huge protest outside Congress during the trial is in order.

[volsrock]

In this brief exchange, Cruz focuses on the report of an attorney who altered documents in order to support the FBI’s FISA warrant application renewal. Did an FBI attorney really create “fraudulent evidence” to ensure the renewal of Page’s surveillance, Cruz wondered — and Horowitz confirmed it:

Cruz: “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement for the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?"

IG HOROWITZ: “That is correct. That is what occurred.”

[Darth Omar]

Doesn’t matter. The words quid pro quo or bribery aren’t in articles of impeachment so I guess the democrats don’t think they can prove either one

Given that most of them are lawyers—they probably knew that lol.

Throw it on the wall and see if sticks. They’re a craven bunch.

[Frank Apisa]

You switched parties? It's about time!!

Hello Frank

Hey, RB.

Can't switch parties. I'm a registered Independent.

Good to see that avatar of yours.

[Frank Apisa]

Hi Frank,



Well we have to have some way to deal with a sue-happy President. If not my suggestion then I'm all ears to solve the problem. But of course 44% of the nation doesn't even think it's a problem. No doubt they would be raising a huge ruckus of Obama had done this, but since it's Trump it's OK.

If the shit Trump is doing had been done by former Presidents Obama or Clinton...or by Hillary Clinton if she had been elected, these same people defending Trump would be demanding to have them hanged rather than impeached.

But...this is just the way things are working out.

As for the SCOTUS thing...I really think the SCOTUS will try to stay as far away from "settling" things between the other two branches as possible. They will settle small things like the propriety of subpoenas...but they will be disinclined to intervene in a massive way.

[Earl]

In this brief exchange, Cruz focuses on the report of an attorney who altered documents in order to support the FBI’s FISA warrant application renewal. Did an FBI attorney really create “fraudulent evidence” to ensure the renewal of Page’s surveillance, Cruz wondered — and Horowitz confirmed it:

Cruz: “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement for the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?"

IG HOROWITZ: “That is correct. That is what occurred.”

Yes, it occurred.