I agree. You and Dave are the only two enthusiasts who consistently see no merit in any critiques. The forum has a number who love what Trump stands for and much of what he has done, but are clear-eyed about what seem other obvious realities as well.
Well said, nothing is more clear to me than his true devotion to expressing his real feelings! It is manifest that his passion is for the truth as he genuinely sees it. Eric Hoffer described what he called a “true believer,” and when some of Dave’s rhetoric gets ad hominem, I try to remember that it only comes out of sincere concern that the obvious truth he perceives is getting trampled by Trump’s opponents.
What’s happening with NATO?
And who in this BBC video, might be causing problems - I wonder? : 
"Think about it… why should Democrats in Congress be ignoring their legislative responsibilities, and wasting their time and the nation’s scarce resources with impeachment proceedings less than a year away from the next presidential election on November 3, 2020? And why would Democrats think impeachment a wise course to follow, particularly after putting the country through nearly two years of the Mueller investigation – which proved to be a hoax?
What many are now realizing is that Democrat Party leadership has lost its bearings by surrendering control to the extreme left – an amalgam of pro-Islamic and Marxist views as represented by the so-called “squad.” The impeachment effort is not just an attack against Donald Trump; it’s also meant to dishearten and disenfranchise nearly half the country who voted for him.
The American Republic established by the Constitution provided for a more stable system of government based on honoring the results of scheduled elections than the parliamentary form of democracy, where politics and a no-confidence vote could bring a government down and require a new one to be formed on an unscheduled basis. Relative political stability and continuity of the American Republic has been the chief contributing factor to the nation’s civility, as well as its meteoric economic rise over the last 240 years." - Scott Powell
The Banana Republic? We need a song, to emphasize this idea!
In their report, the House Democrats confirmed that the quid pro quo linked to the July 25 call, which they failed to prove because it is not illegal to ask for conditions for U.S. aid under the law, was a hook needed to expand articles of impeachment wherever they wanted, saying:
At the center of this investigation is the memorandum prepared following President Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s President … Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain.
…
The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. … [And] refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas. …There remain unanswered questions, and our investigation must continue, even as we transmit our report to the Judiciary Committee.
The Democrats’ report appears to concede there is not enough evidence for impeachment based on quid pro quo on July 25 alone, now claiming the crime evolved. - Edwin Mora
What was wrong was delaying the funds that Congress approved to Ukraine. If a Pres can withhold funds that Congress appropriated then why have a Congress? This delay was short and minor and i’m not suggesting any reason for it either way but i suspect this delay was going a bit beyond Presidential powers so although minor , i still see it as wrong.
1 Like
Did he withhold it? I m.ean, they did not provide him any dirt, and they still got their aid.
In any case, even if it was inappropriate, it’s not impeachable. And if he did something inappropriate, which I still don’t see, it’s nothing that hasn’t been done by everyone in that office at one time or another.
If they weren’t so obviously frothing at the mouth to impeach our President, just because they lost, I’d give them a pass.
Anyway, onward and upward. Thanks Steve.
Yes he withheld it 5 weeks and yes they did get the aid and yes many undoubtedly have done worse and not a peep was uttered by anyone in other cases.
1 Like
OTOH, just to play the devil’s advocate: there is a good case to make that DT was only following the treaty, from back when Biden was in office. This process of looking into corruption was a matter even back then, and DT was playing by the rules agreed to in the treaty. Now some here believe they can read his mind as to what his ‘real’ intentions were, but the facts be the facts - he broke no law, was following the terms of the treaty, and did nothing inappropriate.
Biden did the inappropriate thing, but of course the left just dances around it - they have bigger game, which is undoing the election of the President of the United States.
Quote -
It was passed when Joe Biden was a member of the U.S. Senate and then signed by then-President Bill Clinton.**
A comprehensive treaty agreement that allows cooperation between both the United States and Ukraine in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
It appears President Trump was following the law to the letter when it comes to unearthing the long-standing corruption that has swirled in Ukraine and allegedly involves powerful Democrats like Joe Biden and others. - end quote
Just saying - this appears to be just as reasonable as thinking the Pres was just strong-arming to dig dirt. He doesn’t need dirt on Biden - it’s all out there in the public realm, or being brought out further.
Extra, extra - hot off the BBC presses.
I’m not aware of any treaty so if DT was in fact following the procedures of this treaty I will change my opinion! BTW what does OTOH mean?
On The Other Hand 
“law experts” indeed & of course if they had the opportunity the Repubs can bring in their own “law experts” to give their opposite opinions.
Which hand?? Never mind
He is still innocent. No case has been made other than mind-reading, imputing motives and hearsay by the Dems.
Legal experts - and really, have you seen the background info on these people? - Trump haters from way back -and how are they ‘witnesses’? To what?
THEIR opinion is going to help take away our elected Prez? I need another cookie. The impeachment circus is making me fat.
There are a few who do interpret Trump this way. But his less pure appeal for many is that he does not play bound by the same status quo conventions that hypocritic politicians usually posture about.
I find it especially refreshing that he is not afraid to do things many have touted as inappropriate, and that with precious little guile, he is usually quite transparent about what he’s really thinking.
Yes, and that in and of it self should be a groundwork to at least say ‘here is the president we have, let’s make the most of it’ but obviously this will never happen.
1 Like
One of the Dems “experts” said she walked on the other side of the street to avoid the Trump Hotel.