New Poll, Majority don't want Trump Impeached/Removed.

[Deleted User 203]

You don’t feel they’ve deflected at all? What have all the process complaints and complaints about Democrats not liking Trump, while failing to defend his conduct say? Just today, when asked whether it’s appropriate to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival Rep. Deb Lesko tried to claim that Trump didn’t. That’s a lie, likely because she knows it’s indefensible.

There’s nothing to look up, because there aren’t other examples of Presidents asking their personal lawyers to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid. Do you feel that’s an appropriate thing to do? Why?

You said “Congressional leaders”. It was a party line vote, and perfectly expected - did anyone expect a single Judiciary GOP member to vote yes? And what’s arrogant about stating a fact - Congress is allotted oversight power in the Constitution, and if the President is not removed and demonstrated an abuse of his power or office, he can be impeached again. Trump continues to insist his call was “perfect”, so there’s every risk of him doing something like it again, or of him having done something similar in the last three years coming to light.

Thank you for the reply.

You have your thoughts on this as do I.

No thoughts on whether it’s appropriate for Presidents ask their personal lawyers (who have admitted to working in the interests of their client, not the country) to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid?

I've already stated how I feel about it, Francee and I don't believe the foreign aid was held-up for that reason.

We won't agree again.

[Francee89]

Thank you for the reply.

You have your thoughts on this as do I.

No thoughts on whether it’s appropriate for Presidents ask their personal lawyers (who have admitted to working in the interests of their client, not the country) to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid?

I've already stated how I feel about it, Francee and I don't believe the foreign aid was held-up for that reason.

We won't agree again.

You haven’t - you said (incorrectly) other Presidents have done it, but didn’t say whether or why it’s appropriate. Whether or not foreign aid was held up for that reason, it was held up while Trump was asking for these investigations. And if it wasn’t held up for that reason, why was it released once Trump became aware of the whistleblower complaint?

[Deleted User 203]

No thoughts on whether it’s appropriate for Presidents ask their personal lawyers (who have admitted to working in the interests of their client, not the country) to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid?

I've already stated how I feel about it, Francee and I don't believe the foreign aid was held-up for that reason.

We won't agree again.

You haven’t - you said (incorrectly) other Presidents have done it, but didn’t say whether or why it’s appropriate. Whether or not foreign aid was held up for that reason, it was held up while Trump was asking for these investigations. And if it wasn’t held up for that reason, why was it released once Trump became aware of the whistleblower complaint?

Again, I disagree with your assessment.

I honestly am not up to playing into one of your pit bull grips on a topic tonight, Francee.

When someone states they disagree, it's going to be rather hard-pressed to convince them otherwise unless that's all you're into these discussions for...the arguments and not really sharing feedback regardless if it's agreed with or not.

[Francee89]

I've already stated how I feel about it, Francee and I don't believe the foreign aid was held-up for that reason.

We won't agree again.

You haven’t - you said (incorrectly) other Presidents have done it, but didn’t say whether or why it’s appropriate. Whether or not foreign aid was held up for that reason, it was held up while Trump was asking for these investigations. And if it wasn’t held up for that reason, why was it released once Trump became aware of the whistleblower complaint?

Again, I disagree with your assessment.

I honestly am not up to playing into one of your pit bull grips on a topic tonight, Francee.

When someone states they disagree, it's going to be rather hard-pressed to convince them otherwise unless that's all you're into these discussions for...the arguments and not really sharing feedback regardless if it's agreed with or not.

Lol okay, you’re going with the elected GOP playbook of declining to answer whether it’s appropriate or not. I’m genuinely interested in whether you think it’s appropriate and why or why not, which would seem to fall squarely into the “sharing feedback” category.

[Deleted User 1461]

Thank you for the reply.

You have your thoughts on this as do I.

No thoughts on whether it’s appropriate for Presidents ask their personal lawyers (who have admitted to working in the interests of their client, not the country) to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid?

I've already stated how I feel about it, Francee and I don't believe the foreign aid was held-up for that reason.

We won't agree again.

He admitted to it.
The law says he was bribing and withholding and it was illegal

[Deleted User 203]

You haven’t - you said (incorrectly) other Presidents have done it, but didn’t say whether or why it’s appropriate. Whether or not foreign aid was held up for that reason, it was held up while Trump was asking for these investigations. And if it wasn’t held up for that reason, why was it released once Trump became aware of the whistleblower complaint?

Again, I disagree with your assessment.

I honestly am not up to playing into one of your pit bull grips on a topic tonight, Francee.

When someone states they disagree, it's going to be rather hard-pressed to convince them otherwise unless that's all you're into these discussions for...the arguments and not really sharing feedback regardless if it's agreed with or not.

Lol okay, you’re going with the elected GOP playbook of declining to answer whether it’s appropriate or not. I’m genuinely interested in whether you think it’s appropriate and why or why not, which would seem to fall squarely into the “sharing feedback” category.

If you were sincerely interested in my answer, you would have taken it on its word when I have given it to you numerous times vs referring to it as a "GOP playbook" answer.

I don't believe we're required to agree and at some point, it's no longer about discussing and debating, but merely proving that you feel you're right and those who oppose you are wrong.

Some days, I'll play. Others, I just won't. Today is the latter.

[Francee89]

Again, I disagree with your assessment.

I honestly am not up to playing into one of your pit bull grips on a topic tonight, Francee.

When someone states they disagree, it's going to be rather hard-pressed to convince them otherwise unless that's all you're into these discussions for...the arguments and not really sharing feedback regardless if it's agreed with or not.

Lol okay, you’re going with the elected GOP playbook of declining to answer whether it’s appropriate or not. I’m genuinely interested in whether you think it’s appropriate and why or why not, which would seem to fall squarely into the “sharing feedback” category.

If you were sincerely interested in my answer, you would have taken it on its word when I have given it to you numerous times vs referring to it as a "GOP playbook" answer.

I don't believe we're required to agree and at some point, it's no longer about discussing and debating, but merely proving that you feel you're right and those who oppose you are wrong.

Some days, I'll play. Others, I just won't. Today is the latter.

No, I’m genuinely interested because you didn’t answer. You incorrectly claimed it’s been done before, but didn’t comment on the propriety. No one is required to agree, nor has anyone claimed that, but if you’d rather not continue the discussion, okay. I was simply remarking that it doesn’t seem to be a popular topic amongst the elected GOP either.

[Della]

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

LOL, there's that John Solomon opinion piece again.

"Solomon's stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as "an outright fabrication", but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon's claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon's claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon's Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]"

...

"Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani - Trump’s personal attorney – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community's assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas: "No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle." Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_So ... mmentator)


"Circa's reporting has been characterized by other media outlets as conservative.[7][24][8] Circa attracted attention for its reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which broke many stories seen to be favorable to the Trump administration.[7] According to The Hill, Circa's reporting on Russian interference has "only a peripheral focus on whether anyone in Trump’s inner circle had contact with Russian officials during the campaign".[7]

It has been reported that Sinclair had made an agreement with the Trump campaign to be given greater access in exchange for favorable coverage.[7][6] Solomon said that reporting in many mainstream outlets was "reckless, false, unfair and imbalanced".[7]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circa_News

I was not aware that this piece had been posted before.

Nevertheless, always be cautious when getting any source of information from Wikipedia.

It's said the site can be edited at any time.

When our youngest daughter was in high school (it was an online school) and in any report she had to write for both her honors classes as well as regular classes, they had to cite their sources for any information used. With each syllabus for those reports, it was warned that no student was to use Wikipedia as it was just not considered reliable.

John Solomon is the one who got this whole conspiracy theory started. If you would take the time to check, you would know this. You are more than welcome to look at the links at the bottom. Is that something you do, or do you simply ignore because it's Wikipedia?

After all, you didn't even know where this conspiracy originated.

[Deleted User 203]

LOL, there's that John Solomon opinion piece again.

"Solomon's stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as "an outright fabrication", but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon's claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon's claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon's Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]"

...

"Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani - Trump’s personal attorney – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community's assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas: "No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle." Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_So ... mmentator)


"Circa's reporting has been characterized by other media outlets as conservative.[7][24][8] Circa attracted attention for its reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which broke many stories seen to be favorable to the Trump administration.[7] According to The Hill, Circa's reporting on Russian interference has "only a peripheral focus on whether anyone in Trump’s inner circle had contact with Russian officials during the campaign".[7]

It has been reported that Sinclair had made an agreement with the Trump campaign to be given greater access in exchange for favorable coverage.[7][6] Solomon said that reporting in many mainstream outlets was "reckless, false, unfair and imbalanced".[7]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circa_News

I was not aware that this piece had been posted before.

Nevertheless, always be cautious when getting any source of information from Wikipedia.

It's said the site can be edited at any time.

When our youngest daughter was in high school (it was an online school) and in any report she had to write for both her honors classes as well as regular classes, they had to cite their sources for any information used. With each syllabus for those reports, it was warned that no student was to use Wikipedia as it was just not considered reliable.

John Solomon is the one who got this whole conspiracy theory started. If you would take the time to check, you would know this. You are more than welcome to look at the links at the bottom. Is that something you do, or do you simply ignore because it's Wikipedia?

After all, you didn't even know where this conspiracy originated.

I stated I didn't that this has been posted here before which you seem to indicate.

And I gave you an honest warning about the reliability of the site you've used.

[Della]

I was not aware that this piece had been posted before.

Nevertheless, always be cautious when getting any source of information from Wikipedia.

It's said the site can be edited at any time.

When our youngest daughter was in high school (it was an online school) and in any report she had to write for both her honors classes as well as regular classes, they had to cite their sources for any information used. With each syllabus for those reports, it was warned that no student was to use Wikipedia as it was just not considered reliable.

John Solomon is the one who got this whole conspiracy theory started. If you would take the time to check, you would know this. You are more than welcome to look at the links at the bottom. Is that something you do, or do you simply ignore because it's Wikipedia?

After all, you didn't even know where this conspiracy originated.

I stated I didn't that this has been posted here before which you seem to indicate.

And I gave you an honest warning about the reliability of the site you've used.

Are you aware of where John Solomon has worked? Or is the reliability of the sources used in the site in question?

You gave me an "honest warning about the reliability of the the site I used"? That is really interesting considering you like to use the Hill's opinion from John Solomon.