... knock, knock, knock!
Im glad I don't have to exist in the venomous blasted hell hole you call a country. Personally I view not having to fend off horse sized spiders with a broken chair leg a perk of living in America.
That and I'm sure here in a few years having a penis would probably disqualify you from voting in your country.
HYPERBOLIC COMMENTS GO!
@SentientBrick😂😂😂 you’re talking about your shitty country right? 🤔Don’t try and compare America to Australia because we’re rarely on the world news... as for your President, the whole world knows about him = how big of an asshole, immature and Twitter freak he is. He’s an embarrassment to your country!! He probably used his family status to buy his way to become the President of America. He’s a disgusting pig!! LOL
It won’t effect him either way
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I absolutely concur.
Shorter version of link: "It's a coup". No, it's part of the constitution, and it's there for a reason. It works better when one party is not 100% behind denying reality, but it can still work.
@goaded, it works better when both parties aren't guilty of the same shit.
Except they're not.
Hahahaha Spoken by a loyal Democrat.
It isn't complicated because the president of Ukraine didn't investigate Joe Biden and still got his foreign aid. The president of Ukraine also did a press conference saying Trump never did this. There is not one witness they can call in the hearings that isn't based on hearsay. So you tell me what reason is there for impeachment? Other than the Dems being butthurt over losing in 2016?
@OrderofKaos Well, having been in Ukraine, walked the streets of Kyiv and having talked to Ukrainians your boy who was supposed to investigate Biden was corrupt. Poroshenko was very slow about cleaning up corruption which is why he lost the election. Ukrainians are tired of being fleeced by their "ruling class".So how much do you know about Ukrainian politics? Because my Ukrainian friends would like to know.And you are playing that tired game. There isn't one witness. . . blah blah. . . dude, stop repeating talking points.Vindeman was on the call. From what I heard, he is going to testify. We have the partial notes from the call where trump tries to extort a favor from the Ukrainian President. That isn't spin. That isn't open to interpretation. That is simple plain objective fact.The issue is whether you are cool with it. If you are, do you. Because I certainly going to do me.
The thing about Trump is I don't agree with him on everything he pissed me off with what he tried to do to healthcare I am not some Trump supporter who supports him no matter what. Does your friend being Ukrainian have anything to do with this? No it doesn't the fact is the president of Ukraine didn't investigate Biden and he still got his aid. If they want to impeach a president they actually have to show that he did something wrong. Not come at him with any dirty trick they can until they get rid of him. Now I am sure you were on here months ago saying he colluded with Russia too. Then the truth came out that Hillary actually did not Trump. You are letting your hate for the man keep you from seeing the facts. Dems been saying impeach him since 2016 sine before he did anything at all as president. In the past impeachments were a bipartisan effort. Both sides were a part of it because a president did something wrong. This is so biased and wrong and anyone actually looking at facts can clearly see this. The thing is though when the House impeaches him the Senate will simply squash the whole thing and Trump walks away with a smile on his face and then an even bigger smile when he wins in 2020 and he owes it all to Democrats like you who still can't get over what happened 3 years ago.
@OrderofKaos I don't one little friend in Ukraine dude. I literally know dozens of people. A couple of my friends even have youtube channels. I was looking into going into business with them. I might still do that, because things are getting hairy here in the U. S.But anyway, the book on Poroshenko was that he was not getting rid of corrupt officials and these backroom deals that were literally screwing Ukrainian people. And his "AG" was not investigating corruption and getting rid of bad actors. But everyone liked the way he stood up to Putin. As for your argument, it isn't an argument. Trump admitted the wrongdoing. Mulvaney admitted it. Then the intelligence committee went and found evidence to prove what they already admitted to doing. Lastly, Trump released the partial notes from his call.It is against the law for any government official to solicit anything of value from a foreign government.Anything.But trump did not stop there. He withheld the aid "we" approved to help Ukraine and attempted to extort this item of value from their President.You can claim anything you wish.That is against the law in every way you could possibly view it. If it were you or me, we would be under a jail cell. This is not about overturning squat. If that turd was going to win the election, why on earth would he need a public investigation of the Bidens? The defense makes nonsense. He could have ordered his AG, Barr who is doing whatever he is commanded anyway, to investigate the Bidens. But we all know why he didn't. So why keep playing around?
@OrderofKaos - if you listened to the recent testimony one of the Republican conspiracy theories was that Democrats tried smear Trump with Ukrainian help (totally false, no evidence, no testimony). Meanwhile, there is bulletproof evidence, testimony, transcripts, that show beyond a doubt that Trump did just that for his own campaign.
@OrderofKaos- Attempted murder is still a crime. - Ukrainian President said “yes” to Trump, he would do it.- Trump held up the approved aide past the deadline- Trump release the aide two days after Trump was caught- Ukraine inexplicably stopped their investigation into Paul Manafort 2 years ago then miraculously got their first batch of javelin missiles
Is that a Yes?
Soteris what evidence? Every witness didn't actually witness anything. Ukraine got their foreign aid and even the president of Ukraine has said over and over Trump didn't do this. So even the supposed victim is saying it never happened. You seriously need to stop letting your hate cloud your brain.
Obviously. You can look at things from his campaign finance violations, his numerous obstruction of justices, his nepotism, his various self dealings and the list goes on and on. There is even concerns about his mental health and potential drug addictions.
His mental health is fine and what drug addictions? Show me an impeachable offense. I don't agree with Trump on healthcare or net neutrality or some other things he has done or wants to do but I agree with him on some things and really none of what I think matters. The man is being railroaded. If he actually did something to deserve impeachment then Americans would listen to the facts but there are absolutely no facts to back the Democrats up. If the House impeaches him it will be a partisan situation just doing it because they hate him. Then the senate will just squash the whole thing and Trump walks away smiling.
@OrderofKaos Even if you remove the entire Ukraine scandal there list of evidence is overwhelming. That is what overwhelming means more or less.
@OrderofKaos Let me remind you that Clinton was impeached over lying about an affair. If that constitutes an impeachable crime then why not all these other things?
This guy isn’t even American he knows nothing
@Rissyanne Well evidently I know quite a few things that you appear not to. English for example judging by our numerous previous conversations. What is included in the Muller report is another thing you struggle with. What many mental health organizations have said about Trumps mental health is yet another or how about most things in general? I mean it would take longer to list the things I dont know about Trump that you do than the other way around.
You know nothing but what you watch on cnn
I sort of see it this way. All the most recent presidence have done something that coukd be impeachable. If they didn't call for their impeachment then it is hypocritical to do so here.
Do you think he did?
I honestly don’t know. One group says he did, one he didn’t. Without facts it’s just a show at this point.
Here are the facts ecfresh the president of Ukraine didn't investigate Biden and he still got his foreign aid from the US. The president of the Ukraine also said Trump never did this. All the witnesses are based on hearsay. The Dems have absolutely nothing. If we impeach a man simply because they want a reason to impeach him what does that say about the US?
The Muller report actually brings up a few. Maybe you should read it?
@Soteris the Mueller report has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment hearings. Go worry about your own country because you are sadly mistaken about anything to do with mine.
he withheld aid from Ukraine for dirt on Joe bidan. here's the transcript www.whitehouse.gov/.../Unclassified09.2019.pdf more info on the case of bidan: www.politifact.com/.../
@OrderofKaos Yes and no. It depends on if they want to include them or not. They are free evidence and the impeachment hearings can drag in just about whoever they want and whatever they want to make a case.
and how many times is that done out of fear or shame?
The standard of what is needed was set when the Republicans impeached Clinton for simply lying about an affair.
@Soteris you idiot he lied under oath
@Soteris Yea, you're an idiot. He lied under oath, which is far worse than lying about an affair, and he did so on tape.
And how many times have Trump lied under oath now? I can count a few times actually.
@Soteris then why hasn’t he been prosecuted
@Rissyanne Good question, why has he not?
@Soteris When? Under oath? When?
The Muller report includes a few examples actually. Although Trump insisted on using written replies and did not cooperate he did commit several lies under oath which is just funny since he literally had lawyers helping him to avoid it but he probably lied to them as well.
@Soteris You're not giving me anything but conjecture, and probably.
Oh you want concrete examples?"I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to "Mr. Peskov" at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you."In this response Trump makes at least 3 claims that is contradicted by Cohen in his plea deal.1: He lied about the number of conversations calling it a "few" where as they had at least 10. This is especially important in context since at the time we only knew about 3 of those conversations.2: He lied about not talking about traveling to Russia where he explicitly told Cohen to inquire about it although in this case it would be harder to prove since he "does not recall".3: He lied about not having any communication with Russia when Cohen had a 20 minute conversation with Elena Poliakova that he later informed Trump on but again he "does not recall".This is just one example though.
@Soteris We're not arguing that he has ever lied or stretched the truth in his life, but you're not showing me where he lied under oath.
That written conversation between Trump and Mueller was given under oath.
@Soteris Do you understand what under oath means? Hint: interaction with law enforcement is not under oath.
@Soteris I will also add, you're a buffoon. Bubba lied under oath.
This was during the Mueller investigation and was specifically specified to be under oath.
@Soteris I'll look into that, but I guess it's quite a different matter when you're giving a statement to an investigator, and when you're sworn in in front of a Grand Jury. While I'm doing that, remind me what ever came of that Mueller Report?
Pretty sure Mueller was granted special powers for his investigation as well, not that I think that was necessary in this case but it is worth remembering.As for what came out of it its complicated. For various reasons the scope of the investigation was severely limited which locked out a lot of evidence and possible crimes but it did end with a number of crimes that could be used for impeachment. Sadly he is of the opinion that the president is outside the reach of the law so he gave the evidence to the house so they could make the judgement if these crimes justified impeachment. At this point Trumps appointee Barr intercepted the report and redacted it before handing it off to both Congress and the House I think.Either way a lot was removed but there were still a lot of evidence against Trump, most of which obstruction of justice. As far as I know the whole lying under oath was not directly brought up but mostly came through taking down Michael Cohen.
@Soteris So you want to believe he's a crook, so you're pretty much filling in the blanks with speculation based on nothing more than quasi-conjecture?
Based on what? Mueller has already said that if he was not the President he would have dragged Trump into court. Considering that Mueller feels there is enough evidence for that is more than enough but even then that is just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to Trump.
@Soteris Mueller, as a law enforcement officer, doesn't have the authority to drag anyone to court. He at most could present the case to the local DA, whose office would decide whether to bring it to a grand jury, or not. There are quite a few steps, and realistically the possibility of anyone getting dragged to court for obstruction would be minimal; although Martha Stewart was, with far more evidence against her. As someone pretty well informed on the legal system, for anything not connected to a violent felony, or running afoul of security regulations w/ at least $100M+, there is little chance someone would even be charged with it.The obstruction charge is more dependent on the underlying offense under investigation, and in this case it was just hearsay accusations of a Russian conspiracy.
While you might know how the legal system usually works I am far more informed on this particular case including how Mueller was granted the right to prosecute Trump if he thought it was either necessary or appropriate.
You do realize that being mentally unfit means mentally ill and to a large degree, for that you need to fit the qualifications for a mental illness. And you want to impeach someone because of good posture. Being a little rude is not grounds for impeachment.
@Codywow he's clearly mentally ill. He needs to be hospitalized like a crazy old man.
According to the DSM (the manual that psychologists and psychiatrists use for diagnosing patiants) he does not fit the requirements for any mental illness.
And you'd be surprised how severe of mental illness is required to be hospitalised
@Codywow wrong, according to the DSM V Trump is clearly Narcissistic. emedicine.medscape.com/article/1519417-overview
According to the American psychiatric Association the people who authored the dsm, to fit the qualifications for narcissistic personality disorder one must have a lack of empathy for others. Trump on the other hand offered mexico military aid to fight cartells after an American family was killed. He offered free education to injured war veterans and brought jobs for the unemployed. Those are things that require a large amount of empathy and willingness to act on such empathy.
@Codywow Trump has 0 empathy for anybody.
If you dont include all the empathetic actions towards injured veterans, the families of gang/cartell violence victims, etc.
? Those are mutually exclusive, you know that right?
@Smegskull What are? Narcissist and racist? Why?
Because a racist thinks their race is superior, a narcissist thinks just they and only they are superior.It's like saying someone is both an individualist and a collectivist, or an anarchist and a communist."I don't want someone like that in the office, I support inclusivity" is also a contradiction.I think the opinion is a parody though reading it now I'm more awake.
@Smegskull You can think you're the uniquely perfect white person, can't you?
Fucking name one thing this man, who won a prize for helping inner city kids, did that’s racist
@selfdestruction Central Park 5. He wanted innocent people killed.
Not being omniscient is racist?
it's like any idiot with money can announce his run for presidency-we need schools.
Perhaps the Democrats know they can’t win.
Actually the Democratic party has an amazing candidate.
Doesn't matter still a circus.
Oops. Meant to reply to someone else.
But yes, everything is a circus these days.
There hasn't even been a formal impeachment proceeding, just an "inquiry".
Oh well I guess, I mean isn't it just an investigation?
It's an "inquiry" which really is a made-up term and isn't a formal impeachment proceeding.
No. First public hearing finished. Second public hearing is today (Friday 11/15).
recently? extortion: www.whitehouse.gov/.../Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Did he actually do it?
how else could the line '' I would like you to do us a favor though'' be interpreted? aside from respected individuals have testified-trump admitted it on twitter saying they didn't know he was withholding money, we also have his personal ambassador saying trump did-hear what is chief of staff had to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQxL6WE3Ob8&t=1s