Jump to content

New York Times Editorial Board asks trump...'If you didn't do anything wrong..why won’t you let witnesses testify???


Recommended Posts

The New York Times editorial board issued a scathing op-ed Sunday detailing the ways in which President Donald Trump is destroying one of the key branches of the United States government.

 

While many presidents battle with Congress, Trump has taken his “obvious contempt” to a whole new level. But if he was truly innocent of the accusations he’s facing, then why is he hiding so much.

 

“If Mr. Trump is so clear in his own mind that he didn’t try to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election, why won’t he send the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to testify under oath that there was no quid pro quo?” asked The Times. “Instead, he has issued a blanket refusal to allow officials of his administration to testify or submit documents demanded by Congress. His approach is pitting Republican House members’ fealty to him against their respect for their own institution. They are making a fateful choice to diminish the House.”

 

Indeed, innocent people don’t generally refuse to cooperate and block investigations at every possible juncture.

 

“At an earlier time, such monarchical behavior from a president would have been met with bipartisan insistence on accountability to Congress and thus to the American people,” The Times continued. “With the power of the purse and a shared moral seriousness, a bipartisan majority in Congress would have brought the administration to its senses, if not to its knees, in a day.”

Today’s contemporary Republican Party has changed, however.

 

“It’s clear that Republican House leaders are, in effect, using a constitutional process meant to safeguard American democracy to instead further weaken it,” The Times blasted the GOP.

 

If Trump and the Republicans say that there must be more “material witnesses” with first-hand accounts, then why are they preventing such witnesses from coming forward? Why are they denying subpoenas? Why are documents being provided through Freedom of Information Act requests, but not when requested by Congress?

 

Democrats have moved to rush the process, fearful that the 2020 election is being manipulated by the president in real-time.

“That testimony has established that the White House intervened to hold up military aid to Ukraine while demanding that the Ukrainian president announce corruption investigations into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as well as into the fantasy that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 American election; those investigations were the ‘favor’ Mr. Trump requested in his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president,” the editorial board continued.

 

Currently, the only first-hand accounts from chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and President Trump are available online, and it isn’t favorable to the president.

“There’s no question that the Russia matter underscores that Mr. Trump embraces foreign meddling in support of his own political ambitions, and it can serve as important context as House members press their case,” The Times closed.

 

The Times also argued that if Democrats feel their strongest case is in using the Ukraine scandal, they shouldn’t need the obstruction charges from the Russia scandal. That said, Democrats are likely adding them as a means to draw a line to prevent all future acts of obstruction by a president.

 

Read the full piece at The New York Times.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, benson13 said:

The New York Times editorial board issued a scathing op-ed Sunday detailing the ways in which President Donald Trump is destroying one of the key branches of the United States government.

 

While many presidents battle with Congress, Trump has taken his “obvious contempt” to a whole new level. But if he was truly innocent of the accusations he’s facing, then why is he hiding so much.

 

“If Mr. Trump is so clear in his own mind that he didn’t try to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election, why won’t he send the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to testify under oath that there was no quid pro quo?” asked The Times. “Instead, he has issued a blanket refusal to allow officials of his administration to testify or submit documents demanded by Congress. His approach is pitting Republican House members’ fealty to him against their respect for their own institution. They are making a fateful choice to diminish the House.”

 

Indeed, innocent people don’t generally refuse to cooperate and block investigations at every possible juncture.

 

“At an earlier time, such monarchical behavior from a president would have been met with bipartisan insistence on accountability to Congress and thus to the American people,” The Times continued. “With the power of the purse and a shared moral seriousness, a bipartisan majority in Congress would have brought the administration to its senses, if not to its knees, in a day.”

Today’s contemporary Republican Party has changed, however.

 

“It’s clear that Republican House leaders are, in effect, using a constitutional process meant to safeguard American democracy to instead further weaken it,” The Times blasted the GOP.

 

If Trump and the Republicans say that there must be more “material witnesses” with first-hand accounts, then why are they preventing such witnesses from coming forward? Why are they denying subpoenas? Why are documents being provided through Freedom of Information Act requests, but not when requested by Congress?

 

Democrats have moved to rush the process, fearful that the 2020 election is being manipulated by the president in real-time.

“That testimony has established that the White House intervened to hold up military aid to Ukraine while demanding that the Ukrainian president announce corruption investigations into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as well as into the fantasy that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 American election; those investigations were the ‘favor’ Mr. Trump requested in his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president,” the editorial board continued.

 

Currently, the only first-hand accounts from chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and President Trump are available online, and it isn’t favorable to the president.

“There’s no question that the Russia matter underscores that Mr. Trump embraces foreign meddling in support of his own political ambitions, and it can serve as important context as House members press their case,” The Times closed.

 

The Times also argued that if Democrats feel their strongest case is in using the Ukraine scandal, they shouldn’t need the obstruction charges from the Russia scandal. That said, Democrats are likely adding them as a means to draw a line to prevent all future acts of obstruction by a president.

 

Read the full piece at The New York Times.

 

 

Over one hundred years of pro communist globalist BS.

 

12-9-2019

Democrats will not work with or allow the USA system of government that is by and for the people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, benson13 said:

The New York Times editorial board issued a scathing op-ed Sunday detailing the ways in which President Donald Trump is destroying one of the key branches of the United States government.

 

While many presidents battle with Congress, Trump has taken his “obvious contempt” to a whole new level. But if he was truly innocent of the accusations he’s facing, then why is he hiding so much.

 

“If Mr. Trump is so clear in his own mind that he didn’t try to pressure the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election, why won’t he send the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to testify under oath that there was no quid pro quo?” asked The Times. “Instead, he has issued a blanket refusal to allow officials of his administration to testify or submit documents demanded by Congress. His approach is pitting Republican House members’ fealty to him against their respect for their own institution. They are making a fateful choice to diminish the House.”

 

Indeed, innocent people don’t generally refuse to cooperate and block investigations at every possible juncture.

 

“At an earlier time, such monarchical behavior from a president would have been met with bipartisan insistence on accountability to Congress and thus to the American people,” The Times continued. “With the power of the purse and a shared moral seriousness, a bipartisan majority in Congress would have brought the administration to its senses, if not to its knees, in a day.”

Today’s contemporary Republican Party has changed, however.

 

“It’s clear that Republican House leaders are, in effect, using a constitutional process meant to safeguard American democracy to instead further weaken it,” The Times blasted the GOP.

 

If Trump and the Republicans say that there must be more “material witnesses” with first-hand accounts, then why are they preventing such witnesses from coming forward? Why are they denying subpoenas? Why are documents being provided through Freedom of Information Act requests, but not when requested by Congress?

 

Democrats have moved to rush the process, fearful that the 2020 election is being manipulated by the president in real-time.

“That testimony has established that the White House intervened to hold up military aid to Ukraine while demanding that the Ukrainian president announce corruption investigations into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as well as into the fantasy that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 American election; those investigations were the ‘favor’ Mr. Trump requested in his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president,” the editorial board continued.

 

Currently, the only first-hand accounts from chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and President Trump are available online, and it isn’t favorable to the president.

“There’s no question that the Russia matter underscores that Mr. Trump embraces foreign meddling in support of his own political ambitions, and it can serve as important context as House members press their case,” The Times closed.

 

The Times also argued that if Democrats feel their strongest case is in using the Ukraine scandal, they shouldn’t need the obstruction charges from the Russia scandal. That said, Democrats are likely adding them as a means to draw a line to prevent all future acts of obstruction by a president.

 

Read the full piece at The New York Times.

 

😂Poor idiots must have finally realized they got nothing.

 

They demand Trump do something to incriminate himself!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

😂""Poor idiots must have finally realized they got nothing""

 

 

 

 

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

 

Thumbnail

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, benson13 said:

12-9-2019

'Democrats will not work with or allow the USA system of government that is by and for the people'

 

 

 

How many Bills sitting on MoscowMitch's desk...400??

 

How many of those "bills" are SOCIALISM IN NATURE??? 399 of them??

 

Sucks for you, huh, SCHITSTAIN, that EVERYONE knows what's there but you!!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rednecks..If there was a shred, an iota of evidence exculpating your Lying Criminal Incompetent Ignorant POS...you'd see all day every day TV adds and internet pop-ups would be SCREAMING it on an endless loop from now till Election Day, 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor beanie.

 

They got NOTHING and at best, a water thin or thinner "case" for impeachment that even THEY care to admit.

 

Don't you LOVE IT when a libretard all of a sudden wants EVERYONE to "testify" to try to build some "evidence' that they don't have and never will have since there was NO CRIME COMMITTED!!!
 

gv120519dAPR20191205074507.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, benson13 said:

rednecks..If there was a shred, an iota of evidence exculpating your Lying Criminal Incompetent Ignorant POS...you'd see all day every day TV adds and internet pop-ups would be SCREAMING it on an endless loop from now till Election Day, 2020.

 

EVERY witness you SCHITSTAINS CALLED totally was exculpatory.

 

NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAD ANY FIRST HAND ANYTHING EXCEPT SONDLAND AND HE TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID "I WANT NOTHING".

 

WOW!! Now that is some case for impeachment you have there SCHITSTAIN!!!
 

ROFLMAO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, benson13 said:

 

 

 

 

😂""Poor idiots must have finally realized they got nothing""

 

 

 

 

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

 

Thumbnail

 

 

 

 

Not my fault your idiots got nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, benson13 said:

50% of America wants your Lying POS Impeached and Removed from Office...

 

 

He's laughed at by the World...he's hated, despised, and has ZERO Respect

Another poll?

 

Did you see the interviews on people wanting impeachment?

They asked people and they said yes..

Then they asked what for..

 

They seemed confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...