REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The House Impeaches. The senate determines the validity of what the House has already done and determines the remedy. Basically you're asking for a do-over because the House did a shitty job.Will there be any witnesses during the impeachment trial? Can you Trumpers give your take on not allowing witnesses, or what witnesses you would like to see?
Before you Trumpers want Hunter Biden to be called as a witness, let me remind you:
1. The Aid to Ukraine was already approved as Ukraine passed corruption benchmarks set by the Defense and State department.
2. The GAO has concluded that Trump violated a law when he withheld foreign aid, so whatever reason he gave to withhold aid is irrelevant. He committed an unlawful act by simply withholding aid.
except Trump's own summary of the call contents is at odds with what you're claiming hereIf funds were withheld, it was for OUR security purposes.
Trying to prove otherwise, is the Dems stretching of THEIR assumptions task.
What are you basing this on?If funds were withheld, it was for OUR security purposes.
History of Ukraine government prior to Zelensky is all you need to know.What are you basing this on?
Check your premise and enlighten the crew.
Can't wait!
How so?except Trump's own summary of the call contents is at odds with what you're claiming here
Can you be more specific?History of Ukraine government prior to Zelensky is all you need to know.
Do yourself a favor and review information on exponential growth and the (population) doubling rate
You will never see it. bias is too embedded.Can you be more specific?
Your generalization is a form of evasion.
I'm just trying to see how you see it.
security is never mentioned in any of the communiqueHow so?
So rather than present evidence to support your conclusion that trump held up funds for national security you are going to accuse me of being too biased.You will never see it. bias is too embedded.
You are looking to prove speculative assumptions, instead of looking at actual outcomes.
"If true" lives rent free in most Dems here.
The supposed requirement of the public announcement is NOT corroborated by ANY first hand testimonies. Like much of the House testimonies. Kent was the closest you can get, but still not first hand testimony.security is never mentioned in any of the communique
the requirement that they publicly announce an investigation
in to biden to get the aid released is
you've made an assertion without proof while trying to detract
from an opposing assertion that is corroborated
Testimony by ambassadors in the impeachment inquiry specifically said that withholding of the funds was detrimental to our national security.If funds were withheld, it was for OUR security purposes.
The God King always acts for the good of the country, obviously! Once again the rube showing his cult like devotion to a con man.So rather than present evidence to support your conclusion that trump held up funds for national security you are going to accuse me of being too biased.
Why not present your evidence that trump withheld the funds for the good of the country?