Alright I’m very sure he won’t be impeached

Character is defined as: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

nothing to do with 'world view'

and for me, it does NOT mean you have great character because you say 'if you insult me, I am going to punch you in the mouth', that is just a warning about how lowly your character is. The fact that Trump runs his mouth with threats, is not, to me, a sign of character.

and still having issues in other places in the world also has nothing to do with the qualities I posted, as no President will be able to make things all perfect for everyone everywhere. OBama was president of the USA, not the world, and the USA avoided a depression under his leadership.




As far as Bill Clinton, few men who have been POTUS have NOT been in some way unfaithful to their wives in some way we know about, the short list of those men being OBAMA, certainly not Trump.

WE had not had a serious threat of terrorism since BEFORE TRUMP took office, but I am sure his fans do not mind giving him credit, like they do for alot of things that had already been set in motion BEFORE January 2016.


And Hillary, the usual double standard towards woman was in full view. Million miles flying, I know we are not talking about travel being an indicator of ability to lead.



And the US President is being impeached because there is an appearance that he runs the office like he did his thousands of lawsuits business, without integrity, and for personal promotion of his pockets and his brand, there is the appearance he used money set aside by CONGRESS to extort personal favors for his campaign, and there is more than an appearance that he uses THREATS of harm as personal vendettaas against INDIVIDUALS, and that he uses promises of 'charitable donations' to influence LEGAL PROCEDINGS against him.

In other words, as the articles state, he is being impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

Hello Ms. Harmony,

Now that we know the outcome of Impeachment in the Republican strong Senate
I was curious if Hunter Biden's appointment as Director of Ukrainian Gas will be investigated?

After all Hunter's appointment to the board of Burisma Holdings, - Ukrainian was from 2014 when his father was VP? and was also the time when U's military aid budgetary approval was given by Obama / Biden - right?

You mean the aid that was given in response to and appointment that happened after the Ukranian uprising in 2014 that ousted the President and caused an investigation into public official?

You mean the board that one of those officials HIRED in response to the allegations, which consisted of lawyers like Hunter?

Why not? Investigate.


They can chase their tails as long as they want with that one. I suspect they probably will, like they did the whole birther conspiracy.

It will probably be as 'scandalous', in the end, as the numerous PATENTS Trump's daughter suddenly is acquiring all over the globe during her role as 'presidential advisor'.

I completely agree that Trump's appointment of his daughter as advisor is a joke on the World!

What a mess.

Definitely needed to be impeached. He's lucky that there weren't more articles of impeachment written?

I think this is verry funny ️️️

The Impeachment is an attempted "Coup D'etat" to take out the President...just so you know, when you hear the same thing, 11 times or more, most people tend to believe what they hear, but ask yourself...why has no one ever provided "supporting evidence" to back up even one accusation against Trump?

Evidence that he groped women comes from his own mouth.
Evidence that he bribed a public official investigating his Trump U scam is public record.
Evidence of his daughter's global patents in the past few years is public knowledge.
Evidence of his withholding congressional funds in return for investigating Biden has also been backed up by those working with him.
Evidence that he used charitable funds for personal use was proven well enough that the courts found him guilty.

I do not just believe what I hear. I also read to verify or refute.

Assuming I accept what you have said although I may view those things in a different context, are any of them significant to the point where impeachment is called for? Why use the impeachment route when in 10 months, the voting public will have an opportunity to decide if Trump is the POTUS they want for the next 4 years? I expect the answer to that question will be a resounding YES!!

The impeachment, has been one of
the best comedies offered up, by the
baboons in the house chamber.

That is the question. I think the answer is YES. Using congressional funds for personal gain and intimidating public officials to obstruct legal precedings, SHOULD be impeachable.

Impeachment means the public CANNOT vote him in again, if removed. IT is a more certain way to get him out than trusting a vote of the public of the same folks who elected him the first time.

I am happy with him leaving by vote or by impeachment.

While a conviction of impeachment will remove him from office, it takes a separate vote of the Senate to deny him the ability to run again. I doubt if it would be politically feasible to deny him the ability to again run for POTUS.

Well, the average joe could not work in a bank again if convicted of stealing, just saying. Makes no sense to have grounds for removal and not deem that reason to not allow another run.

I watch some of it yesterday ...


personally surprise how Dem are so professional ...

really have a different opinion about them ...

now the lawyers on the side for the President...

did seem to put on a show as if they where the President ...

but the one thing that got me... was the lawyers said...
the demarcates want them to do their work for them ...

don't understand when they asked for a lot of information ...
but where denied these documents on the Presidents side before this ...

and did not get them ... don't believe its the Dems trying to hold up... the proceedings ... its the lawyers ... everyone is waiting for all of the truth ... not to make a mockery ...of the all that needs to be gone over ...

which ever way this goes ... the truth will come out someday ...

if there really is nothing to hide why then doesn't the president want to testify... oh forgot he does in tweets ...

heard some of the senators where not in the rm ... when this was their only Job ... and some sleeping ... thats just wrong ...unless they had a doc note or personal emergency

in lightning...

https://youtu.be/9N0tUHCpt00

The facts:
1. the Trump administration put a hold on Ukrainian funds Congress had appropriated.
2. Those funds were later released to Ukraine.
3. The administration internal deliberations on withholding the funds were not released to Congress.

Democrat assumptions:
1. The funds were withheld for political purposes and had nothing to do with Ukrainian corruption.
2. That the funds were released as a result of Congressional Democrats pressure.
3. That the original Burisma investigation had been completed and no corruption was found.
4. That Congress has the right to know all the administration internal policy discussions that they want to now about.

These Democrat assumptions are the entire basis for the Articles of Impeachment.

^~~~ false assumption on his part.

They should be looking at Democrats corruption !