I'm sure this cover-up will be much appreciated by the 75% of americans who were in favor of witnesses hearing...

A country that just elected a guy who ran on an anti-corruption platform? Who wasn't even a politician? Please provide a link, I don't think it was hundreds of billions. Facts matter to me.

If Trump didn't have his personal lawyer in Ukraine asking for dirt on Joe Biden, if he didn't have US government officials asking for investigations on his behalf, if he didn't oust the ambassador because Rudy's corrupt Ukraine friends didn't like her, if he didn't clearly associate military aid with investigations in the rough transcript...

If he just paused the aid and asked State, Defense, NSA to review the corruption issue beforehand, and then released it following their findings, your argument might have merit. That didn't happen. Aid was paused, those agencies reviewed the corruption issue and then approved the aid. It was still withheld. Mulvaney admitted it. Bolton admitted it. Yet you're still trying to pretend otherwise.

Honestly, even a president asking a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent is impeachable to me. By itself maybe not worthy of removal based on the facts. If Hillary stood on the White House lawn and said China should investigate Marco Rubio, I would support impeaching her for it, unless she acknowledged it was wrong and apologized.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 31 2020 06:20pm

The only "coverup" was the Dems covering up the truth. This has been one big witch hunt from 2016 until today. :/





/e Funny part is... even with everyone "knowing" this was all a sham... I never thought half this country would be living in denial.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 31 2020 06:16pm

So about this whole last minute NYT leaks of Boltons manuscript that they tried again this morning- cippolone & friends meeting about something something yanonovitch-

Trump gave a statement directly denying it;

Mulvaney also issued a statement calling it a lie.
Giuliani also directly denied it.

Its not a claim made "by bolton", but rather by the New York Times journalists who claim to have seen a copy of a manuscript which they think is the advance copy of bolton's book, without being able to verify that through bolton or his publisher.
There are so many imaginable ways this story could be the result of a purple money dishwasher scenario. Be it Bolton's miscommunication, or a shadowwriter miswriting it, or a hoax manuscript, or a leaker selectively giving manipulated portions to mislead the NYT, or someone misreading it, or misinterpreting it, or just the NYT falsely reporting it out of political animus. So many links in the chain.

There have been so many previous media 'bombshells' in the past 3 years that turned out again and again to be false, be it through misrepresentation or misunderstanding or miscommunication. And whenever the media had a true scoop, Trump & co would never actually come out and directly deny it and risk being caught in a lie. Whenever it was a false scoop, they would shoot it down instantly and call it a lie directly. Which they just did for this one.

So it sure looks like the NYT conjured up some fake news right on the threshold of the impeachment witness vote in hopes that it would stoke just enough popular rancor to help push the senate into bringing on Bolton, who even if he refuted the premise that brought him there, would have bad stuff to say about Trump even if he didn't incriminate him. This shows all the signs of being a true desperate political hit job.

This witness thing is a joke. Bolton?

If Congress had enough Witnesses/Evidence to decide to proceed with Impeachment at the Congress level, they should be confident with their evidence and the case. Lol.

Common sense.

There's a reason prosecutors don't start a case until they have their ducks in a row.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 31 2020 06:22pm

You didn't respond to anything I said.

You do realize Trump wasn't a politician and also ran an anti-corruption campaign, right?

Also look at my correction (prior to you commenting), I said billions. Sources say 30-50 billion and possibly more. Does it matter how many BILLIONS?

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 31 2020 06:25pm

If you're saying that as an example of someone who turned out to be massively corrupt, well played sir. Well played.

I'm using it as an example for investigating a current politician, which you tried to deny is worth doing based on your comment regarding the Ukraine presidents political agenda. Lol.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 31 2020 06:33pm

Dude you sound brainwashed.