https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-1562-d580-a96f-3f66e9950000
What a jumbling, mumbling sack of falsehoods and heaping piles of nonsense from the fellow who currently inhabits in the White House. While this letter has all the bite, bitterness and non-truths that most of this president’s blatherings contain – the good spelling and grammar pretty much tells any clued-in person that DJT didn’t actually write this. But, no matter, though – the nastiness screams T.R.U.M.P. and even uses his autograph.
People who love this country must IMPEACH HIM T.O.D.A.Y.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It really does appear to just be a compilation of his Twitter rants over the time he has been inhabiting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would have ordered it differently and used a different tone, but his arguments are essentially true.
Had the Democrats handled the investigation with due process, they might have had a case for the 2nd Article, but as it was, there was no reason for Trump to cooperate unless ordered to by the courts, which the Democrats could not wait for.
But both articles suffer, again, from the lack of due process. Absent the testimony from the 8 witnesses the GOP asked for and both Schiff and Nadler refused claiming they were not relevant(which means they supported an alternate explanation for Trumps actions) the impeachment from the House does not meet the basic elements of fairness or completeness necessary for a vote to impeach.
This IS NOT a grand jury proceeding. If it were, it would have remained secret instead of being used for political advantage.
Though I would like to see those 8 witnesses called in the Senate, the really proper action by the Senate at this point is to simply dismiss the articles on their face, and call those witnesses instead in hearings by the Senate committees.
They simply do not meet the standards to be accepted by the Senate for trial.
LikeLike
But lying about a blow job in the Oval Office did? I would call you delusional, but that would be an insult to delusional people I am friends with.
Alternate explanations, like alternative facts = Bull Puckey.
And as usual, you do not deny that Mr. Trump used the power of his office to attempt to influence a foreign leader to do his PERSONAL POLITICAL bidding.
Amazing you don’t see your own hypocrisy in any of these statements. Your devotion to parts of the Constitution not named the 2nd Amendment is definitely lacking.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Clinton impeachment is not relevant, unless you want to excuse impeachments of future Democratic Presidents being impeached as tit-for-tat for Trump.
No, Trump DID NOT ask a foreign leader to assist him politically.
Did you read Trumps letter, in which he correctly quoted the July 25th call?
Do US a favor(not me)
The country has been through a lot(referring to the turmoil sine the 2016 election)
Trump very clearly called for an investigation of interference in the 2016 election.
LikeLike
“Trump DID NOT ask a foreign leader to assist him politically”
You. Can’t. Read….
I’ve edited thousands of Journal Articles and had to constantly interpret the meaning of other people’s words. I got pretty good at it.
Trump CLEARLY asked a foreign Government to interfere in our 2020 election. And was using extortion to get compliance.
Most people in a cult are unaware of that fact until they are deprogrammed.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I don’t think I am the one having a reading problem. Read the call transcript.
“Do US a favor, the Country has been through a lot”
Now, if the truth coming out is beneficial to reelection, so what? Would it not be interfering in the next election to prevent the truth form coming out?
LikeLike
How many times has Trump equated himself as the country? He does it regularly, especially when referring to what is happening to him as happening to the country. If you would take off the orange colored glasses and listen to the nuances of Trump’s indecorous speech, you might see through the BS that comes forth from his mouth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t impeach a President for what you imagine you can read between the lines.
LikeLike
Ignoring historical trends is a dangerous thing.
LikeLike
@ Don
Can’t. The transcript is not available. What you read was a summary. Here’s the giveaway, “A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.” is written at the bottom of the page.
Used to write these damned things all of the time. Call summaries, trip summaries, meeting summaries. Arrgh.
I will say this about this summary that is unusual. It’s made to look like a transcript.
LikeLiked by 4 people
And has been sold as such since its release. Kind of like the funds were released AFTER the whistleblower complaint came to light. And Trump’s message to Sondland about saying I want no quid pro quo, which also came to be AFTER it was revealed that those on the call believed that is EXACTLY what he was asking. Timing is a wonderful thing. Except when you are lying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heck Don, even if someone accepts that slender little grasped straw; what about the WH lawn violations of 52 USC 30121?
There is such a preponderance of evidence of wrongdoing that it defies anything other than a complete denial of reality to push back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Tabor
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
The impeachment is not about the phone call where we only have a abbreviated summary and NOT a transcript. But even that summary is damning with multiple references to the Biden family and to the thoroughly discredited bullshit that it was Ukraine and not Russia that meddled in 2016.
That phone call and the way the Trump scum scurried around to hide it was the whistle blower trigger that lead to the Congressional investigation and subsequent discovery of a months long criminal conspiracy. THAT criminal conspiracy is what the impeachment is about. Not the choice of a particular pronoun at one moment in a doctored pseudo-transcript.
Your parroting of GOP process gripes is laughable. EITHER you are too dumb to understand the difference between gathering information (with both parties involved) and trying a case OR you are just a partisan hack eager to spread intellectual garbage if some people might buy it. No other possibility comes to mind.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No,it’s not about a phone call, it’s about spoiled brats who cannot accept losing an election, The decision to impeach Trump was made the night of the election, and the Ukraine business is just the last desperate hope that something can be found to accomplish that 3 year quest.
You might have a case IF you could show that Trump had some criminal intent, but it is clear no such proof exists, otherwise the Democrats would have allowed due process in the investigation. But they didn’t, they ruled those witnesses that could prove Trump was correct that there was, in addition to the Russian efforts, attempts to sway the 2016 election by Ukrainian interests, and that in those efforts there was collusion with the DNC through Alexandra Chalupa.
That is the real scandal here, that the House Democrats feared a fair hearing and refused to allow one. That refusal to allow the other side to be heard is the clearest evidence that it is they who have something to hide.
LikeLike
Well, the Senate is where the actual hearing is supposed to take place, But because McConnell is taking his marching orders form the WH, the idea of a fair hearing in the Senate is, shall we say, non-existent. If the witnesses requested can offer exculpatory evidence for Trump, they should be heard from. Yet those closest to the center of the circle will not testify because they don’t want to perjure themselves in front of the Senate and the rest of the country. -IMHO.
If no witnesses are called then you can say it is a Kangaroo Court with McConnell, et. al., in Trump’s pouch
LikeLike
“Criminal intent” is absolutely irrelevant. Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. In fact, if he truly believes that he is within his rights to ignore the laws and the Constitution or too stupid to understand the crimes he is committing, then the case for impeachment is even more compelling. It is all about removing an unsuitable President and not about prosecuting a criminal.
Clearly there have been some people in the Democratic Party (and many in the former GOP) who wanted Trump gone from day one, but the truth is that the leaders involved, particularly Nancy Pelosi, did not want to go down this road until their hand was forced by the whistle blower and the facts that emerged in his aftermath. This is the obvious truth of the matter which you lie about without shame. Pitiful.
If your argument is that “due process” would lead to exoneration what will your argument be when the Senate fails to hold a real trial and call real witnesses who – up to now – have been kept from testifying by the President? You are creative and shameless. I am sure you will rationalize it somehow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Clinton impeachment is not relevant,”… Then why I have I heard it brought up numerous times by Republicans as well as Democrats?
And while we’re on it, I heard a joint interview with Trent Lott and Tom Daschle last week on NPR and they were both pretty much aghast about how McConnell is handling his duties.
LikeLike
RE: “Though I would like to see those 8 witnesses called in the Senate, the really proper action by the Senate at this point is to simply dismiss the articles on their face, and call those witnesses instead in hearings by the Senate committees.”
The Senate, and the president, will finally be liberated, once the House shoots the final arrow in their quiver. After the impeachment vote, all the persuasion power will be on the side of Trump and his supporters.
LikeLike
Dismiss the articles on their face? Even though they are supported by unimpeachable evidence? And without hearing the testimony of people who directly acted on Trump’s instructions in this matter? That is the attitude of a party that is not interested in the truth, the rule of law or protecting and defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the traitorous attitude of Russia’s “useful idiots.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Dismiss the articles on their face?”
Sure. I have previously argued that the articles, as given, are unconstitutional. Johnathan Turly in the House Judiciarary Comm. hearing said much the same.
Here, though, I simply note that the fantasy of the Democratic Party is about to end, leaving their opposition to the president in a collapsed state, without possibility of ressurection.
LikeLike
@Roberts
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Article of Impeachment. If Turly actually said that – I doubt that he did – he would have betrayed an astonishing level of ignorance for a supposedly learned man.
If the GOP Senate – as expected – acts out of partisanship and not patriotism by ignoring the established facts of the crimes committed then that will have the opposite effect than the one you pine for. Political opposition to the continuation of Trumpism will be intensified – not collapsed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
LikeLike
@Roberts
“Blah, blah, blah, blah”
Is that shorthand for . . . “I have made a fool of myself yet again?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
” Johnathan Turly “… He flip flopped on impeachment like a fish out of water. He was supportive of the impeachment of Clinton for lying about a sex act with an intern in the Oval Office. But he believes that the abuse of power perpetrated by Trump is NOT impeachable. To Dr. Turley, I say, “Your political bias is showing”.
Funny how the other 3 Constitutional scholars who testified at the same time felt differently. If it were a matter of consensus of the experts, Turley loses 3-1. Better than climate change deniers, but still as lopsided.
LikeLiked by 3 people