T or F: It's no longer a matter of opinion—Trump broke the law. The only question is whether Senate Republicans will confirm impeachment?

I suspect most Republicans haven't read the testimony of:

1) Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union ;

2) Kurt Volker, former U.S. Representative for Ukraine Negotiations ;

3) William Taylor, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ;

4) Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council.

Each of these men confirms that Trump withheld over $400M in US military aid to Ukraine until President Zelensky agreed to open an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of Trump's political rival Joe Biden.

That's a direct violation of 52 U.S.C. §30121 (Contributions and donations by foreign nationals)

"It shall be unlawful for... a person to solicit, accept, or receive... an express or implied promise... from a foreign national."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Republicans need to understand that Trump broke the law. It's not an opinion. It is documented with transcripts and supported by the public sworn testimony of at least four people. 

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Republicans have become the party of corruption. They are perfectly OK accepting criminal behavior from other Republicans. They don't mind Trump's pattern of over and over again hand picking people to fill administrative positions then turning around and viciously attacking them. Their excuse of calling the huge list of accusations against Trump fake media news has become laughable. His supporters now look as ridiculously foolish as Rudy Giuliani.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    OK NOW for the BIGGIE... Make the .. your next post actually 

    1. LIST THE LAWS you say he broke, 

    2. The Date he broke it  

    and MOST IMPORTANT 

    3.THE NUMBER of the statute he broke.

    Maybe you forget ALL PRESIDENTS INCLUDING OBAMA have help money back from other countries,, WE, OBAMA, CLINTON, BUSH etc. have also BANNED TRAVEL TO OTHER COUNTRIES ( CUBA) for one and there have been temp bans on others..

    THE US TOOK OUT the elected leader of PANAMA, The Philipines, and other countries but you left say do not interfere with other countries elections etc... ..BUT REALLY POST the answers to the first 3 questions as a response to you LIEING POST..

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Clive
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    Did you have a question?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    False: It has NEVER been a matter of opinion. NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are claiming he did is breaking the law.

    I KNOW you haven't read ANY of the testimony, because is HAS NOT been released, or even leaked in any level of context that allows you to know what the 'witness' actually said.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 months ago

    I am sorry but you are incorrect.  No matter what the crime the law is determined by the opinion of people (like a jury or a judge).  Thus your opinion is not considered enough to convict.  Nor is the opinion of all those you listed.  The opinions that matter are the majority of the both houses of Congress.  The House to indict the President, and the Senate to serve as the jury.  And just like other jury trials, juries get it wrong sometimes, or the prosecution isn't strong enough to convict.  You pointing out the strength of the case may seem like it should be open and shut, you also need to remember the jury considers far more than the evidence, like if the punishment fits the crime.  So while the majority of the Senate may recognize the crime, they could still vote to not impeach because they believe the crime committed shouldn't be an impeachable offense (like they did when Clinton was impeached for perjury)

    • ...Show all comments
    • linkus86
      Lv 7
      3 months agoReport

      It sounds like you only read half my answer.  Inform yourself by reading the entire answer.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    They keep denying and lying, but in the end it is not looking good for Trump at all. Sondland testified there was quid pro quo.

    "If it's such a slam dunk impeachment, then why hasn't your Democrap Party impeached him already?" (numb nuts has me blocked, so addressing here): "Yeah, we all know Casey Anthony is guilty so get on it and charge her." That worked out so well...

    Even when there are bunch of witnesses including police officers to a murder, they still take their time to gather all of the evidence, organize the evidence and then present the evidence. Only fools rush in...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Greed and self-preservation will not only land these spineless cowards in the unemployment line but it's going to get many of them rolled up in legal trouble.

    You simply cannot fix stupid.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    It's all crap. Coached and edited testimonies do nothing. No crime anyway.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      3 months agoReport

      "Do you hate all military members or just the ones who tell the truth?"  Classic form of ad hominem attack, using a false dichotomy, when the logic defies your point.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    First of all, Trump broke no laws. So, the question of whether he should be removed from office is pointless.

    "Testimony" comes in a courtroom, nitwit. Not in a congressional inquiry or investigation. So, at this point your ASSESSMENT of guilt is premature, which I'm sure you're very familiar with.

    Once again, LSP, I have to point out the flaws in your opinions.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Lone Star Patriot
      Lv 6
      3 months agoReport

      The point is the Constitution and the rule of law. We can't force Republicans to do the right thing, but we can force them to vote against the right thing. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Dze
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    nah .. i dont think they have one shred of evidence for that with the big factor being the leader in question says it never happened .. Biden was under fire 'already' and trump was just asking what they were doing about it .. there wasnt some big conspiracy to strong arm a country into taking down a political opponent thats complete horsesht .. biden was 'already' under fire before this all happened .. we know it .. anybody intelligent knows it .. the only question is if theres enough stupid people that will buy the dem narrative ..

    • ...Show all comments
    • davidmi711
      Lv 7
      3 months agoReport

      A condition congress imposed on the aide was the replacement of the prosecutor Joe Biden "bragged" about getting fired. The replacement prosecutor investigated the company where Hunter worked. The original prosecutor abandoned that investigation two years before Hunter was hired.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    True.  It's becoming impossible to defend Trump.  That's why they're desperately trying to find the identity of the whistleblower.  Their only strategy is to defame them and then claim the investigation was illegitimate from the start.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.