Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

The Trump articles of impeachment are obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Trump actually did those things, but we just don't seem to care. That's clear.

I don't think Nixon would have resigned or been impeached today. And I think that's wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

Yes it’s worse than Nixon. And given what we do know, think of what other corrupt acts Trump has done that are locked up in that safe where they had to out the transcript of the phone call because they realized how bad it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

Innuendo? You deny that that Trump ordered all Executive Branch departments and employees to not comply with ANY of Congress' lawful subpoenas?

That's a slam dunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: no one cares and has moved on except the Democrat congress.

Nice how you dismiss the majority of Americans who voted for those Democrats to represent them.

It's partisan, the only people who are partial are independents and swing who are now majority against impeachment.

They were still elected by the majority of Americans. Nice of you dismiss them and nullify their votes.

Did the Democrats turn away voters that didn't want impeachment? Of course not. Criticizing politicians for focusing on something that doesn't matter isn't "nullifying" anyone's vote, especially if the voters didn't really ask the politicians to go down the rabbit trail they're following. Put differently, there are actually a lot more pressing issues than impeachment, and Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff can be more focused on impeachment than their voters care to be. In fact, this is almost certainly the case given that there is an election in less than a year and Pelosi is wasting her time on this. I don't think voters are going to be impressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite the contrary. Most all "facts" have been disputed.

You are correct. Almost every fact introduced has been disputed.

Of course, the basis of those disputes are utter garbage, comprising as they do a mix of conspiracy theories, whatabouts, diversions, hysterical ranting, and outright lies - but yes, they have technically been disputed.

Let’s be realistic. The timing was because of the devastating report out last night.

The report that said the FBI investigation was properly started and there was no spying on the Trump campaign? Ya, devastating.

The report also found that the FBI did not verify that the evidence used in the FISA applications was true. It also found that the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence with regard to Carter Page. That is devastating. They are required to certify to the court that the evidence has been verified and that all evidence that points to innocence has been presented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

Love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

Love it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

Trump stated multiple times, even in the last couple days, that Ukraine should really investigate the Bidens, and now has said that China should do the same. He has said N O T H I N G about any other element of corruption in those or any countries. If nothing else is clear its that he doesn't care about corruption, he cares about investigating the Bidens. Actually scratch that, the evidence and testimony makes clear that he didn't even care about about an actual investigation, just the appearance of one.

Call records showed Nunes calls with Lev Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, people of interest in the impeachment inquiry. They didn't subpoena Nunes' calls, but what do you know, he happened to have called Parnas and Giuliani multiple times at length.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

Trump stated multiple times, even in the last couple days, that Ukraine should really investigate the Bidens, and now has said that China should do the same. He has said N O T H I N G about any other element of corruption in those or any countries. If nothing else is clear its that he doesn't care about corruption, he cares about investigating the Bidens. Actually scratch that, the evidence and testimony makes clear that he didn't even care about about an actual investigation, just the appearance of one.

Call records showed Nunes calls with Lev Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, people of interest in the impeachment inquiry. They didn't subpoena Nunes' calls, but what do you know, he happened to have called Parnas and Giuliani multiple times at length.

The public statements about China/Ukraine investigating Biden is really the same as the public statement that Russia should release Hillary's email. Even the Washington Post says so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-publicly-calls-on-china-to-investigate-bidens/2019/10/03/2ae94f6a-e5f2-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html Hunter Biden is a clear liability to Biden and basically a scumbag. Not sure he's the best mantle for the impeachment proceedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

Trump stated multiple times, even in the last couple days, that Ukraine should really investigate the Bidens, and now has said that China should do the same. He has said N O T H I N G about any other element of corruption in those or any countries. If nothing else is clear its that he doesn't care about corruption, he cares about investigating the Bidens. Actually scratch that, the evidence and testimony makes clear that he didn't even care about about an actual investigation, just the appearance of one.

Call records showed Nunes calls with Lev Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, people of interest in the impeachment inquiry. They didn't subpoena Nunes' calls, but what do you know, he happened to have called Parnas and Giuliani multiple times at length.

The public statements about China/Ukraine investigating Biden is really the same as the public statement that Russia should release Hillary's email. Even the Washington Post says so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-publicly-calls-on-china-to-investigate-bidens/2019/10/03/2ae94f6a-e5f2-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html Hunter Biden is a clear liability to Biden and basically a scumbag. Not sure he's the best mantle for the impeachment proceedings.

No matter how much you downplay it, it's still an abuse of the Presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

Trump stated multiple times, even in the last couple days, that Ukraine should really investigate the Bidens, and now has said that China should do the same. He has said N O T H I N G about any other element of corruption in those or any countries. If nothing else is clear its that he doesn't care about corruption, he cares about investigating the Bidens. Actually scratch that, the evidence and testimony makes clear that he didn't even care about about an actual investigation, just the appearance of one.

Call records showed Nunes calls with Lev Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, people of interest in the impeachment inquiry. They didn't subpoena Nunes' calls, but what do you know, he happened to have called Parnas and Giuliani multiple times at length.

The public statements about China/Ukraine investigating Biden is really the same as the public statement that Russia should release Hillary's email. Even the Washington Post says so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-publicly-calls-on-china-to-investigate-bidens/2019/10/03/2ae94f6a-e5f2-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html Hunter Biden is a clear liability to Biden and basically a scumbag. Not sure he's the best mantle for the impeachment proceedings.

No matter how much you downplay it, it's still an abuse of the Presidency.

The problem for your team is that there is no standard there. It's a political point, one which can't really be won without removal. Voters voted for Trump once. They will just see the statements, which are consistent with things he said in the 2016 campaign about Hillary's emails, as Trump being Trump. It also makes the Biden family seem kind of scummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they couldn't come up with real charges like bribery, extortion, robbery etc..m so they came up with 2 subjective fake charges, kangaroo court indeed hagaha

The articles of impeachment against Nixon were obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Would you have wanted Nixon to resign in the face of that, in today's climate?

Nixon actually did those things. There were tapes, and bipartisan support for impeachment (and he was not even impeached because the facts were so clear). Here, there is innuendo and suggestion. You can read the evidence 2 ways - that's not similar to Nixon at all.

There is direct evidence, not the least of which is in Trump's words on twitter and to the press. The innuendo and suggestion is coming from the Republicans -- Ukrainian "interference" based on a couple news articles and an op-ed; Nunes being swept up in call records because he was conversing with investigation targets and somehow that's a Democrat surveillance state issue; other bullshit about 2016 and the Deep State; etc.

The reason there isn't "bipartisan support" is because most of the congressional GOP has completely given up on the conservative ideals they used to defend. Rule of Law, National Security, the Constitution, the Impeachment process, and so on. I really never thought I would see the day when Democrats are explaining to Rs how to be conservatives ffs.

What statements to the press? I guess we're not talking about quid pro quo or bribery anymore. You mean his stupid joke about Russia releasing the emails they hacked? The Mueller report didn't even give that and his other statements any credence.

By the way, your message contains a conspiracy about Nunes and his call records: "because he was conversing with investigation targets" What is your evidence for the quoted statement?

Trump stated multiple times, even in the last couple days, that Ukraine should really investigate the Bidens, and now has said that China should do the same. He has said N O T H I N G about any other element of corruption in those or any countries. If nothing else is clear its that he doesn't care about corruption, he cares about investigating the Bidens. Actually scratch that, the evidence and testimony makes clear that he didn't even care about about an actual investigation, just the appearance of one.

Call records showed Nunes calls with Lev Parnas, and Rudy Giuliani, people of interest in the impeachment inquiry. They didn't subpoena Nunes' calls, but what do you know, he happened to have called Parnas and Giuliani multiple times at length.

The public statements about China/Ukraine investigating Biden is really the same as the public statement that Russia should release Hillary's email. Even the Washington Post says so: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-publicly-calls-on-china-to-investigate-bidens/2019/10/03/2ae94f6a-e5f2-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html Hunter Biden is a clear liability to Biden and basically a scumbag. Not sure he's the best mantle for the impeachment proceedings.

No matter how much you downplay it, it's still an abuse of the Presidency.

The problem for your team is that there is no standard there. It's a political point, one which can't really be won without removal. Voters voted for Trump once. They will just see the statements, which are consistent with things he said in the 2016 campaign about Hillary's emails, as Trump being Trump. It also makes the Biden family seem kind of scummy.

Again, its not the Trump voters who will be swayed. It's the Independents who have swung 10+ in support of Impeachment since October.