What are your general thoughts on Impeachment?
As you can imagine I fall on the side of the President and Republicans just like the vote. I’ve read the transcript several times. It is a fast read and I suggest everyone read it for themselves. Click here. I do not see the crime in asking the newly elected President of Ukraine to cooperate with investigating to see if a former Vice President committed a crime. That is what it is going to boil down to. Answer the question. Is it a crime to ask someone to cooperate in the investigation of a crime? If someone claims it is a crime because the person involved is a potential political candidate for President, does that mean people running for President are above the law? I thought Nancy Pelosi and everyone is saying nobody is above the law. I also thought the Dems were good with having then-candidate and now President Trump investigated.
What do you think about the vote taken in the House?
Impeachment should be a bipartisan thing. Historians from both parties agree to this single fact. The Democrats could not get a single Republican to vote for the impeachment inquiry. On top of that two Democrats voted against the measure along with the Republicans. It is amazing they could not find a single Republican to vote with them. This should tell us all something about this process and the premise.
What do you think about the opening statement of Colonel Vindman and those who attacked him?
I read through his opening statement. Like other issues, I suggest people read it before they comment. Click this link to read the entire opening statement. I will paste in what I think is pertinent below.
On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.
On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.
I noticed the NSC (National Security Council) proposed the call between the Presidents. The call was monitored by the NSC and the office of the VP. The transcript is a matter of public record.
President Trump has made his views clear about the “Security” agencies even as a candidate. He doesn’t completely trust them. It was Chuck Schumer who said:
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
- Remember, Chuck Schumer is the top Democrat in the Senate. He was not being kind but at this point, he was being honest. Could it be this was a set up by the NSC? Are they part of what we now know as the “deep state”? I’m just asking questions.
- With so many people on the phone call would Trump say anything he thought was illegal? Is it wrong for a President to ask for the cooperation of foreign leaders to investigate crimes committed in their country by our politicians? Again, is Biden above the law?
- Go read the transcript! We are back to that again. Vindman said it was a matter of public record so he is not suggesting a cover-up. Whatever Vindman thought was wrong is there for all of us to read.
- Vindman uses words like concerned, think, worried, could be, interpreted. These are not the words we used in the military when making a point of fact. They are words we used when making opinions known. So, all we know so far is Vindman holds an opinion that is the opposite of President Trump.
Finally, I know he received the Purple Heart. However, I do not know the man but I knew plenty of people who got wounded and receive the Purple Heart. If any veteran is seriously injured my heart goes out to them. However, a Purple Heart is meaningless when it comes to measuring character. It is like saying the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that sucks. Good and bad people get shot and seriously injured. Again, all I’m saying is it does not speak to a person’s character one way or the other. In that respect it is neutral. Acts of valor are different.
There’s your “bombshell” testimony.
Discover more from Veterans for Trump
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With former acting director John McLaughlin’s comment “Thank God for the Deep State.”, the common fear of literally MILLIONS of Americans was confirmed. Our ‘security sector’ is rotten to the core and in much need of an overhaul. This farce being conducted by House Democrats (commonly known as an ‘Impeachment Inquiry’) is nothing shy of a whitewashed, covert method to undermine and remove a DULY ELECTED President and while I may no longer be an active duty member of the US Armed Forces, my oath of enlistment has no expiration date. I still am charged to ‘protect the United States from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC’ and That is an obligation that moves me deeply and profoundly. I do not take it lightly and fully intend to carry out this duty to the best and utmost of my abilities. I urge ALL patriotic Americans to join a III% security force (your state more than likely has one) to protect their rights and their country from this insidious DOMESTIC enemy known as the Democrat Party. It is a den of snakes and we may soon be called to eradicate it. ][][][%4LIFE!!!
I love your little very timely missives. I always agree on your take of things. Again here you are right. Much ado about nothing! The Dems are clutching at straws here. In 1 Year we get our say and reaffirm our support for Our President. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comments and encouragement Michael and Leo and thank you for your service! I added the “Years Served” block to comments because I wanted to discern between pro and anti-Trump comments on the length of service. I’ve always suspected the longer someone has served the
they are to support Trump.
So no one has problem with the President using Military Aid to extort a foreign government into cooperating into investigating his political opponents?
No this is not a real investigation.
How long Ago did this supposed crime take place?
How long ago did Trump take office?
Why wait till now to push for an investigation?
Why use his personal lawyer to do his dirty work?
Trump did nothing on this until he needed to dig up dirt on his political opponents. Until Joe Biden became the fore runner, Trump did not care about this.
I wish we could see a real transcript of the phone call. What was released is obviously not the complete transcript as it covers less than half the length of the phone call. What was released clearly shows President Trump using Military Aid to force the Ukrainian Government to investigate Biden. Plus, Mulvaney flat out confirmed that this was the way Trump conducted foreign policy.
Trump using the Government to get back at his personal enemies, as well as using it to increase his personal fortune should raise concerns.
The Impeachment was just as one sided, except it was the Republicans who wanted to impeach Clinton for cheating on his wife.
Voted Yes on Each Article
# Article I Article II Article III Article IV
Democrats 206 5 5 5 1
Republicans 192 188 166 180 122
Independents 1 0 0 0 0
Article 1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading
testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones
case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Approved by House 228-206
Article 2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading
testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written
questions and in his deposition.
House: Failed 229-205
Article 3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede,
cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the
Jones case.
Approved by House 221-212
Article 4. The president misused and abused his office by making
perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress.
House: Failed 285-148
Hi Jon, if you didn’t catch it I created a post related to your comments here.
Is it a crime to ask someone to cooperate in the investigation of a crime?
No, but threatening to withhold foreign aid if they don’t cooperate is.
does that mean people running for President are above the law?
No, but the current President isn’t above the law either. Even though Trump seems to make it so. Just look at his lawyers’ statement that the President is above ALL law.
This impeachment is no more partisan than Clinton’s was.
President Trump has made his views clear about the “Security” agencies even as a candidate. He doesn’t completely trust them.
But instead of trying to fix them, he just continues to trash them.
What about Mulvaney confirming that “quid pro quo” is SOP for the Trump Administration?
Do you think the threat to withhold foreign aid was even ethical?
Nixon must be so thankful that he is not the most corrupt President ever any more.
I’ve read the transcript and there is no threat to withhold foreign aid. Please site a factual basis for your accusation. You can add a link.
“If you can prove an actual crime”
They have to prove the crime in order to start the investigation?
I have read the transcript, and with the withholding of foreign aid right before? I would like to see th full transcript. What was released accounts for less than half the time of the call.
Doesn’t matter anyway, Mulvaney came right out and said it occured and it was SOP.
Let’s think for a minute. If one assumes that there was something that should be in the transcript that was not, we would be accusing the CIA and others of covering things up. Is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear about your thoughts.
On Mulvaney: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said Sunday that his words were taken out of context when he acknowledged on Thursday that military aid to Ukraine was being tied to President Trump seeking a political favor.
You can take Mulvaney at his word or dismiss what he said in his clarification. I know I believe him. The more we speak or write publicly the more likely we are to goof things up. Joe Biden’s goofs as an example are an exaggeration to make a point. I can’t think of anyone who has to clarify what they were trying to say more than Joe. I am guessing you will give Joe Biden a pass but not Mulvaney. Correct me if I’m wrong.
In the end, Democrats will have to prove this part of their accusation based on corroborated testimony. Now, let’s say that happens. I like many Americans still would not have a problem. The law here favors Trump as part of the anti-corruption rules set forth by Congress to make sure we aren’t giving aid to corrupt governments.
I know I will see it one way and you and others will see it another. We will simply have to wait this out just like we did the Russian Collusion thing. Meanwhile, American progress is stalled until we get Trump re-elected and a majority of Republicans back in the House. It seems the only way to get much done is to have all branches of government run by one party or the other. Even then it can be difficult because not all Republicans or Democrats agree on everything.
Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts. As I’ve previously stated, we are brothers so I hope there are no hard feelings. All the best to you!
I’m in my sixties, I have followed politics since my twenties. However, I don’t recall any politician or their minions taking any statement back.
No they don’t usually take them back. They all like to use the term “clarify”.
Here’s a little old-time quote to make us all chuckle. Not sure if I have it 100% correct but close enough.
What about the other six people who have testified under oath that there was?
NEW YORK — A New York judge ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging he misused his charitable foundation to further his political and business interests.
Judge Saliann Scarpulla also signed off on an agreement Thursday to close the Trump Foundation and distribute about $1.7 million in remaining funds to other nonprofit groups. The train is coming
I should have put that off as a new paragraph. In other words, I agree nobody is above the law. However, all we have now are accusations.
Sorry, I’ve lost the train of thought here. What about the people who have testified? Give me some quotes because we are talking a lot of pages of testimony. Are we talking opinions, presumptions or actual orders by the President? Please cite corroborated first-hand testimony that is not an opinion, or presumption by the one testifying.
Pj, this is where you go a bit over the edge by ending with “The train is coming.” It reminds me of one of my right-wing nut job friends that uses the same type of term meaning the opposite of what you mean. Breathe in deeply, exhale fully. Repeat until you feel calm.
I could write another book on this subject alone. I’m part of a non-profit that got caught up in a $30,000 problem. Now, when you deal with larger amounts the screw up can cost you more like 2 million vs $30,000. These laws are so hard to understand it is a wonder anyone tries to be charitable at all. Heck, Trump decided to add an additional 2 million to the penalty since it was going to charity.
PS as a side note. Obama paid the highest fine ever for campaign finance violations. The “train” never came for him either. Again, breathe in deeply, exhale fully. And no, I’m not being a wise-ass. I practice this as well.