I Was Wrong About Mitt Romney

[Mike Griffith]

For the last 8 years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

[Sarah]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

[johnBob]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

Because the US has a Treaty with Ukraine which was passed by Congress and signed by the President over 25 years ago which requires cooperation on cases of corruption. The President of the US as head of the Executive Branch has the Duty to enforce Treaties with Foreign powers.

What law enforcement channels? The US can't investigate corruption in a foreign country-that country has to do it and then reports those findings or extradites those individuals to the US to stand trail.

[msfreeh]

A liberal is someone who walks out of the room when an argument turns into a fight

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged





Mitt has my vote





Tweeting is not truth
Behaviour is truth



The FBI put Trump in office for the Deep State
The FBI will keep him in office for the Deep State

[larsenb]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

[larsenb]

A liberal is someone who walks out of the room when an argument turns into a fight

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged





Mitt has my vote





Tweeting is not truth
Behaviour is truth



The FBI put Trump in office for the Deep State
The FBI will keep him in office for the Deep State

Garbage.

High level FBI officials were directly involved in the attempt to surveil and get Trump kicked out of office. Where have you been while this has been endlessly exposed and outed??

[Sarah]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

Because the US has a Treaty with Ukraine which was passed by Congress and signed by the President over 25 years ago which requires cooperation on cases of corruption. The President of the US as head of the Executive Branch has the Duty to enforce Treaties with Foreign powers.

What law enforcement channels? The US can't investigate corruption in a foreign country-that country has to do it and then reports those findings or extradites those individuals to the US to stand trail.

Well, it seems like you could have had one state department or law enforcement agency talking to another. Why the two Presidents, all while talking about foreign aid. I doubt this is how it is commonly done to have two Presidents talking about individuals when there are suspicions of corruption, unless of course one or the other has a particular interest in that individual.

[johnBob]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

Because the US has a Treaty with Ukraine which was passed by Congress and signed by the President over 25 years ago which requires cooperation on cases of corruption. The President of the US as head of the Executive Branch has the Duty to enforce Treaties with Foreign powers.

What law enforcement channels? The US can't investigate corruption in a foreign country-that country has to do it and then reports those findings or extradites those individuals to the US to stand trail.

Well, it seems like you could have had one state department or law enforcement agency talking to another. Why the two Presidents, all while talking about foreign aid. I doubt this is how it is commonly done to have two Presidents talking about individuals when there are suspicions of corruption, unless of course one or the other has a particular interest in that individual.

That's what he was trying to set up. This was only his 2nd call with the NEWLY elected President of Ukraine. He had one call to congratulate the newly elected President on April 21 (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/77966725 ... -zelenskiy)
and then he called him again 3 months later to start the coordination.

This was simply typical heads of states calling each other discussing state matters. If a rat and traitor (most likely a CIA officer out to get the Pres.) hadn't blown this thing up, it would have been taken care of at a lower level.

One of the primary functions of the President's job is to provide one clear head to represent the US in Foreign Affairs.

[Sarah]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

[johnBob]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

"I'd like you to do us a favor", meh that's typical high-stakes politics.

[Sarah]

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

"I'd like you to do us a favor", meh that's typical high-stakes politics.

Ha ha! Of course it is. Business as usual in politics.

[johnBob]

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

"I'd like you to do us a favor", meh that's typical high-stakes politics.

Ha ha! Of course it is. Business as usual in politics.

Right, everyone gets up in arms of seeing the sausage being made. Which is why it's so ridiculous and everyone up at that level knows it.

Show me something criminal and I'll want them to kick Trump out-but this is the equivalent of getting a ticket for jaywalking and then saying that person should go to jail for 10 years.

[Sarah]

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

Because the US has a Treaty with Ukraine which was passed by Congress and signed by the President over 25 years ago which requires cooperation on cases of corruption. The President of the US as head of the Executive Branch has the Duty to enforce Treaties with Foreign powers.

What law enforcement channels? The US can't investigate corruption in a foreign country-that country has to do it and then reports those findings or extradites those individuals to the US to stand trail.

Well, it seems like you could have had one state department or law enforcement agency talking to another. Why the two Presidents, all while talking about foreign aid. I doubt this is how it is commonly done to have two Presidents talking about individuals when there are suspicions of corruption, unless of course one or the other has a particular interest in that individual.

That's what he was trying to set up. This was only his 2nd call with the NEWLY elected President of Ukraine. He had one call to congratulate the newly elected President on April 21 (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/77966725 ... -zelenskiy)
and then he called him again 3 months later to start the coordination.

This was simply typical heads of states calling each other discussing state matters. If a rat and traitor (most likely a CIA officer out to get the Pres.) hadn't blown this thing up, it would have been taken care of at a lower level.

One of the primary functions of the President's job is to provide one clear head to represent the US in Foreign Affairs.

Right, if it wasn't for the whistle-blower, we wouldn't have been through this farce. All a staged effort, and then we get all the juicy details to keep our attention.

[johnBob]

Because the US has a Treaty with Ukraine which was passed by Congress and signed by the President over 25 years ago which requires cooperation on cases of corruption. The President of the US as head of the Executive Branch has the Duty to enforce Treaties with Foreign powers.

What law enforcement channels? The US can't investigate corruption in a foreign country-that country has to do it and then reports those findings or extradites those individuals to the US to stand trail.

Well, it seems like you could have had one state department or law enforcement agency talking to another. Why the two Presidents, all while talking about foreign aid. I doubt this is how it is commonly done to have two Presidents talking about individuals when there are suspicions of corruption, unless of course one or the other has a particular interest in that individual.

That's what he was trying to set up. This was only his 2nd call with the NEWLY elected President of Ukraine. He had one call to congratulate the newly elected President on April 21 (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/77966725 ... -zelenskiy)
and then he called him again 3 months later to start the coordination.

This was simply typical heads of states calling each other discussing state matters. If a rat and traitor (most likely a CIA officer out to get the Pres.) hadn't blown this thing up, it would have been taken care of at a lower level.

One of the primary functions of the President's job is to provide one clear head to represent the US in Foreign Affairs.

Right, if it wasn't for the whistle-blower, we wouldn't have been through this farce. All a staged effort, and then we get all the juicy details to keep our attention.

Yes a "whistleblower" who worked for the CIA for the last decade-and still does, who has been a key player on the National Security Council for the last 6-7, who is an Obama holdover, who had plenty of ties to Obama's previous CIA director, DCI director, and FBI.

Not a "whistle-blower" more like an under-cover CIA mole attempting to take down a sitting president in a soft coup attempt.

[Mike Griffith]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

First of all, that is not the same thing as saying "if you don't investigate the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair, I will withhold aid." But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was that explicit, even though the transcript shows he was not. Presidents do this kind of thing all the time--all, all, all the time, as the defense and many historians have pointed out. Good grief, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have both stated in campaign speeches that they would consider withholding aid from Israel if Israel would not do what they wanted on the Palestinian issue. What in the devil do you call that? Humm? What do you call that?

Biden went to Ukraine--and he has admitted this on video--and threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in aid, more than twice the amount of aid that Trump suspended, if Poroshenko did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company (Burisma) that had just hired Biden's son, who had no experience in energy, for $50K per month. What do you call that? What in the devil was that?

Trump had every legal and moral right in the world to want to get to the bottom of that shady affair. Furthermore, he had also expressed concern about corruption with the previous Ukrainian president (Poroshenko).

And I repeat the point that the Democrats asked Ukraine to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, which was a purely partisan witch hunt based on a phony dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

[larsenb]

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

"I'd like you to do us a favor", meh that's typical high-stakes politics.

With his use of 'us', though, he is referring to America, the US. And for the Ukraines to both investigate and root out the corruption in their country would be a direct benefit to all Americans, who don't want to see their tax dollars fueling this corruption. Not any more complicated than that. If the investigation gets into the Biden corruption, so much the better. The possibility that it might slightly and inadvertently help Trump's election negates none of this,

Dershowitz presents this argument very carefully, succinctly and accurately. Take it or leave it.

[Sarah]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

First of all, that is not the same thing as saying "if you don't investigate the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair, I will withhold aid." But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was that explicit, even though the transcript shows he was not. Presidents do this kind of thing all the time--all, all, all the time, as the defense and many historians have pointed out. Good grief, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have both stated in campaign speeches that they would consider withholding aid from Israel if Israel would not do what they wanted on the Palestinian issue. What in the devil do you call that? Humm? What do you call that?

Biden went to Ukraine--and he has admitted this on video--and threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in aid, more than twice the amount of aid that Trump suspended, if Poroshenko did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company (Burisma) that had just hired Biden's son, who had no experience in energy, for $50K per month. What do you call that? What in the devil was that?

Trump had every legal and moral right in the world to want to get to the bottom of that shady affair. Furthermore, he had also expressed concern about corruption with the previous Ukrainian president (Poroshenko).

And I repeat the point that the Democrats asked Ukraine to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, which was a purely partisan witch hunt based on a phony dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

It's called bribery, right? All business as usual, I understand that. And I understand that Biden was doing the worst of it. I don't expect you to understand my position because I can't prove it, but I believe that the Biden's were set up to do this. They were lured by the corrupt Ukrainians (or Russians who are pulling the strings) into this corruption scandal, all so they could be thrown under the bus later. Not only was this scandal a way to balance out the "Russia interference" accusations (so now the right would now have their own "Ukrainian interference" to accuse the Democrats with), this scandal was an excuse to rope in Trump and friends into their own perceived scandal, all food for the Dems to go crazy with. I just happen to believe that Trump knows exactly what is going on and is playing along his part in this back and forth drama.

[larsenb]

Well, it seems like you could have had one state department or law enforcement agency talking to another. Why the two Presidents, all while talking about foreign aid. I doubt this is how it is commonly done to have two Presidents talking about individuals when there are suspicions of corruption, unless of course one or the other has a particular interest in that individual.

That's what he was trying to set up. This was only his 2nd call with the NEWLY elected President of Ukraine. He had one call to congratulate the newly elected President on April 21 (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/77966725 ... -zelenskiy)
and then he called him again 3 months later to start the coordination.

This was simply typical heads of states calling each other discussing state matters. If a rat and traitor (most likely a CIA officer out to get the Pres.) hadn't blown this thing up, it would have been taken care of at a lower level.

One of the primary functions of the President's job is to provide one clear head to represent the US in Foreign Affairs.

Right, if it wasn't for the whistle-blower, we wouldn't have been through this farce. All a staged effort, and then we get all the juicy details to keep our attention.

Yes a "whistleblower" who worked for the CIA for the last decade-and still does, who has been a key player on the National Security Council for the last 6-7, who is an Obama holdover, who had plenty of ties to Obama's previous CIA director, DCI director, and FBI.

Not a "whistle-blower" more like an under-cover CIA mole attempting to take down a sitting president in a soft coup attempt.

Excellent commentary.

[larsenb]

. . . . . . I just happen to believe that Trump knows exactly what is going on and is playing along his part in this back and forth drama.

There is a danger in letting yourself get trapped by your assumptions. Better to just let the 'facts' speak, such as they are, imo. Trump has also done many, many things that indicate he is the least controlled or not controlled at all.

Its too easy to claim that this person and that one is just simply 'controlled opposition'. I just think you fall into this trap too easily. No offense intended.

[Mike Griffith]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

First of all, that is not the same thing as saying "if you don't investigate the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair, I will withhold aid." But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was that explicit, even though the transcript shows he was not. Presidents do this kind of thing all the time--all, all, all the time, as the defense and many historians have pointed out. Good grief, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have both stated in campaign speeches that they would consider withholding aid from Israel if Israel would not do what they wanted on the Palestinian issue. What in the devil do you call that? Humm? What do you call that?

Biden went to Ukraine--and he has admitted this on video--and threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in aid, more than twice the amount of aid that Trump suspended, if Poroshenko did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company (Burisma) that had just hired Biden's son, who had no experience in energy, for $50K per month. What do you call that? What in the devil was that?

Trump had every legal and moral right in the world to want to get to the bottom of that shady affair. Furthermore, he had also expressed concern about corruption with the previous Ukrainian president (Poroshenko).

And I repeat the point that the Democrats asked Ukraine to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, which was a purely partisan witch hunt based on a phony dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

It's called bribery, right? All business as usual, I understand that. And I understand that Biden was doing the worst of it. I don't expect you to understand my position because I can't prove it, but I believe that the Biden's were set up to do this. They were lured by the corrupt Ukrainians (or Russians who are pulling the strings) into this corruption scandal, all so they could be thrown under the bus later. Not only was this scandal a way to balance out the "Russia interference" accusations (so now the right would now have their own "Ukrainian interference" to accuse the Democrats with), this scandal was an excuse to rope in Trump and friends into their own perceived scandal, all food for the Dems to go crazy with. I just happen to believe that Trump knows exactly what is going on and is playing along his part in this back and forth drama.

It's not bribery; it's extortion. Biden threatened to withhold the $1 billion in aid from Ukraine at the direction of his boss, Barack Obama, although I'm sure Biden had no qualms about making the threat. If anyone "set up" Biden, it was Obama, not the Ukrainians. Since when does the American government meddle so deeply into the affair of another country as to single out a prosecutor for firing? That's what Obama and Biden did, and they did it because Shokin, the prosecutor, had opened an investigation into Burisma, which had recently hired Hunter Biden, who had zero background or experience in energy, for the whopping salary of $50K per month. To all but the willfully blind, it is obvious that Burisma hired Hunter Biden as protection/insurance against Shokin's investigation--and their money was well spent, since Hunter's dad, Joe Biden, got the government to fire Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid.

According to the Democrats, the fact that Biden is running in the Democratic primary means that Trump could not, and can never, legally ask Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden's threat to withhold aid if Ukraine didn't fire Shokin. IOW, if you're a Democrat and you engaged in shady dealings in a foreign country, and you're running for president, the sitting president cannot ask that foreign country to investigate those shady dealings because the holding of an investigation might damage your election chances.

[Mike Griffith]

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

First of all, that is not the same thing as saying "if you don't investigate the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair, I will withhold aid." But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was that explicit, even though the transcript shows he was not. Presidents do this kind of thing all the time--all, all, all the time, as the defense and many historians have pointed out. Good grief, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have both stated in campaign speeches that they would consider withholding aid from Israel if Israel would not do what they wanted on the Palestinian issue. What in the devil do you call that? Humm? What do you call that?

Biden went to Ukraine--and he has admitted this on video--and threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in aid, more than twice the amount of aid that Trump suspended, if Poroshenko did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company (Burisma) that had just hired Biden's son, who had no experience in energy, for $50K per month. What do you call that? What in the devil was that?

Trump had every legal and moral right in the world to want to get to the bottom of that shady affair. Furthermore, he had also expressed concern about corruption with the previous Ukrainian president (Poroshenko).

And I repeat the point that the Democrats asked Ukraine to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, which was a purely partisan witch hunt based on a phony dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

It's called bribery, right? All business as usual, I understand that. And I understand that Biden was doing the worst of it. I don't expect you to understand my position because I can't prove it, but I believe that the Biden's were set up to do this. They were lured by the corrupt Ukrainians (or Russians who are pulling the strings) into this corruption scandal, all so they could be thrown under the bus later. Not only was this scandal a way to balance out the "Russia interference" accusations (so now the right would now have their own "Ukrainian interference" to accuse the Democrats with), this scandal was an excuse to rope in Trump and friends into their own perceived scandal, all food for the Dems to go crazy with. I just happen to believe that Trump knows exactly what is going on and is playing along his part in this back and forth drama.

It's not bribery; it's extortion. Biden threatened to withhold the $1 billion in aid from Ukraine at the direction of his boss, Barack Obama, although I'm sure Biden had no qualms about making the threat. If anyone "set up" Biden, it was Obama, not the Ukrainians. Since when does the American government meddle so deeply into the affairs of another country as to single out the country's chief prosecutor for firing? That's what Obama and Biden did, and they did it because Shokin, the prosecutor, had opened an investigation into Burisma, which had recently hired Hunter Biden, who had zero background or experience in energy, for the whopping salary of $50K per month. To all but the willfully blind, it is obvious that Burisma hired Hunter Biden as protection/insurance against Shokin's investigation--and their money was well spent, since Hunter's dad, Joe Biden, got the government to fire Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid.

According to the Democrats, the fact that Biden is running in the Democratic primary means that Trump could not, and can never, legally ask Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden's threat to withhold aid if Ukraine didn't fire Shokin. IOW, if you're a Democrat and you engaged in shady dealings in a foreign country, and you're running for president, the sitting president cannot ask that foreign country to investigate those shady dealings because the holding of an investigation might damage your election chances.

[Sarah]

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

First of all, that is not the same thing as saying "if you don't investigate the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair, I will withhold aid." But, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was that explicit, even though the transcript shows he was not. Presidents do this kind of thing all the time--all, all, all the time, as the defense and many historians have pointed out. Good grief, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have both stated in campaign speeches that they would consider withholding aid from Israel if Israel would not do what they wanted on the Palestinian issue. What in the devil do you call that? Humm? What do you call that?

Biden went to Ukraine--and he has admitted this on video--and threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in aid, more than twice the amount of aid that Trump suspended, if Poroshenko did not fire the prosecutor who was investigating the gas company (Burisma) that had just hired Biden's son, who had no experience in energy, for $50K per month. What do you call that? What in the devil was that?

Trump had every legal and moral right in the world to want to get to the bottom of that shady affair. Furthermore, he had also expressed concern about corruption with the previous Ukrainian president (Poroshenko).

And I repeat the point that the Democrats asked Ukraine to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, which was a purely partisan witch hunt based on a phony dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

It's called bribery, right? All business as usual, I understand that. And I understand that Biden was doing the worst of it. I don't expect you to understand my position because I can't prove it, but I believe that the Biden's were set up to do this. They were lured by the corrupt Ukrainians (or Russians who are pulling the strings) into this corruption scandal, all so they could be thrown under the bus later. Not only was this scandal a way to balance out the "Russia interference" accusations (so now the right would now have their own "Ukrainian interference" to accuse the Democrats with), this scandal was an excuse to rope in Trump and friends into their own perceived scandal, all food for the Dems to go crazy with. I just happen to believe that Trump knows exactly what is going on and is playing along his part in this back and forth drama.

It's not bribery; it's extortion. Biden threatened to withhold the $1 billion in aid from Ukraine at the direction of his boss, Barack Obama, although I'm sure Biden had no qualms about making the threat. If anyone "set up" Biden, it was Obama, not the Ukrainians. Since when does the American government meddle so deeply into the affair of another country as to single out a prosecutor for firing? That's what Obama and Biden did, and they did it because Shokin, the prosecutor, had opened an investigation into Burisma, which had recently hired Hunter Biden, who had zero background or experience in energy, for the whopping salary of $50K per month. To all but the willfully blind, it is obvious that Burisma hired Hunter Biden as protection/insurance against Shokin's investigation--and their money was well spent, since Hunter's dad, Joe Biden, got the government to fire Shokin by threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid.

According to the Democrats, the fact that Biden is running in the Democratic primary means that Trump could not, and can never, legally ask Ukraine to investigate the circumstances surrounding Biden's threat to withhold aid if Ukraine didn't fire Shokin. IOW, if you're a Democrat and you engaged in shady dealings in a foreign country, and you're running for president, the sitting president cannot ask that foreign country to investigate those shady dealings because the holding of an investigation might damage your election chances.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense does it, that American government would be so deeply involved in another government like Ukraine. And it wasn't just about Burisma. Wasn't the deal that we would give aid as long as they agreed to let us basically set up and dictate their corruption agency? And Trump admitted that the U.S. held up the aid because of corruption concerns. What other country do we have such a concern for corruption, that we make aid conditional on setting up a "National anti-corruption agency" and allow us to dictate how to run it? Could it be possible that Russia is using America to do it's dirty work in Ukraine in order to put people in place that they want?

[SPIRIT]

as one person put it -
quote
"One thing you can say about Trump is he is a man of his word. You cannot say that about Mitt Romney"

Mitt Romney says LDS Leaders are Pro Choice

How Mitt Romney Helped Monsanto Take Over the World

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/0 ... anto-bain/



Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... santo-man/


if you haven't seen this video on our food, you're really missing something.
beware of the evils of Monsanto.
again the power of "secret combinations" (which Romney helps to become more powerful)

The Future of Food (2004)

[Juliet]

For the last several years, some of my conservative friends have tried to convince me that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled politician and a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and until yesterday, when Romney voted to convict Trump for abuse of office, I always defended Romney when we talked about him. I now see that my friends were right and that I was wrong. Romney is in fact an unprincipled politician, if not a snake in the grass.

I found Romney's excuses for his vote vacuous, erroneous, and disingenuous. I don't know how any rational, honest person could have sat through that trial and honestly concluded that Trump abused his office because of his discussions with Ukraine's current president concerning corruption and the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair. The president's defense team established (1) that the Ukrainian government was not even aware that the aid had been suspended when the supposed quid pro quo was allegedly proposed, so there could not have been any kind of quid pro quo proposal over aid; (2) that the president never, ever told Ukraine's president that he would withhold aid if the Biden-Shokin-Burisma affair was not investigated; and (3) that the president never conditioned any meeting with Zelensky on whether or not the Ukrainian government announced that an investigation would be conducted.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/25/ ... ent-trial/

By the way, if anybody sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to do their bidding, it was the Democrats:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/46 ... -elections

You don't see anything wrong with Trump asking for a "favor" while at the same time reminding the Ukrainian Pres. how much they help them out? And that this favor was to look into the actions of another politician, an individual? If a U.S. President suspects wrongdoing by any American, why would you personally ask another President to investigate that individual as a favor, when you could go about it through law enforcement channels?

I listened to 5 hours of Ambassador Sondland's testimony on this issue. He was the only 'fact' witness the Democrats had. There was nothing in his testimony that confirmed that Trump's request was meant to be a 'personal' favor to help him get reelected. He was trying to get the Ukraine's to commit to rooting out corruption that was widely known to exist with the previous Ukrainian administration, for us, 'we the people of the US'.

Trump has a fiduciary responsibility to assure that US tax-payer dollars are spent wisely. He was exercising that responsibility. The Hunter Biden activity was widely known, even identified by Democrats during the Obama administration as a ;possible problem. This was simply part of the known corruption, which included Ukrainian activity directed to negatively affect Trump's election, so no wonder Trump wanted this reassurance.

You need to give a close listen to Alan Dershowitz who very carefully and exactly explains why what Trump did was neither impeachable or wrong. Dershowitz is a Democrat, though he currently tags himself as a libertarian. Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and GW U law professor, tells you exactly why the impeachment is wrong: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ranscript/ .

Maybe it wasn't impeachable. I personally would have let it go, as I don't think it matters. But the fact that Trump said, "I'd like you to do us a favor" is just controversial.

He said "I'd like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... 9.2019.pdf
page 3

It's really hard to find anything wrong with that transcript. Trump is telling the president to hire someone to look into corruption. There is nothing wrong with that dialogue.

The ambassador for Ukraine, Shokin, was looking into corruption at Burisma Holdings which implicates Joe Biden's son and Mitt Romney's chief advisor who were both on the board for the company and were using it to funnel money to use to strong arm politicians. For Trump to have a conversation with the president telling him to hire someone to look into corruption was needed.

Giuliani said Shokin was taken to the hospital for mercury poisoning. Not only did Biden force the firing of Shokin through withholding 1 billion dollars, at a time when he was investigating Burisma Holdings, but the follow-up replacement guy is on record in print on a Ukrainian publication saying our Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of persons he couldn't prosecute. Then Jerry Nadler said it was all a lie since and one of our media publications "The Hill" said he retracted that statement, which he never did. The Hill said he wasn't given a list. But the truth is he was "dictated" a list. The lies go on and on. But the premise of Nadler's impeachment case was that Yovanovitch is the princess good lady who is trying to save the poor Ukranians from corrupt officials trying to force them into Russian enslavement... therefore, Trump firing her proves he was on the side of Ukrainian officials, and because they say the Urkanian officials are bad, they must be bad...(last time I checked bad guys don't poison themselves...)

Meanwhile...Yovanovitch told the American Ukrainian embassy worker to work closely with Alexandra Chalupa, who was on the payroll for the DNC, on tape saying she was trying to find dirt on Trump...and this in early 2016! And of course her work is connected all the way to actions taken directly by Barack Obama.

All these facts are from Glenn Beck's work and he shows all the documents.

[BeNotDeceived]

The Future of Food (2004)

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e1031a0c-0 ... 979ac8c556

No mention that patents are only enforceable for a maximum period of twenty years, mostly making their point moot.

Torque , but not maximum. gbng