Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is bullshit. He was responding directly to the question of what it was that he wanted Zelensky to do in the phone call, and he responded that Ukraine should investigate the Bidens and then added that China also should investigate the Bidens. So this was not the same as his campaign rally call for illegal interference from Russia, this was in response to a direct question from a reporter about what it was that he expected of Zelensky. And this is 100% reinforced by other statements he has made, that Giuliani has made, that Mulvaney has made, that Sondland has made, that Volker has made, and that the patriotic bureaucratic witnesses heard.

By saying "what it was he expected of Zelensky" you're claiming that Trump said he expected to Zelensky to launch a probe of Biden in exchange for getting aid. That is absolutely not what Trump said, and I think you know it. He said, and he continues to say, that he thinks Ukraine and China should investigate Hunter Biden because he thinks he engaged in corrupt behavior. If the person Obama were trying to leverage foreign governments into investigating were a popular squeaky clean figure like Obama then I agree voters would probably care. But Hunter Biden is a scumbag and Democrats know that they need to treat lightly.

DP. Why does he only care about Hunter Biden's allegedly corrupt behavior? And why does he care about it now? He provided aid to Ukraine to other times during his presidency, after Hunter Biden existed and after Burisma existed.

Why now?

Why don't you google Hunter Biden and read about some of the lovely things he has been up to lately.

[Anonymous]

Was at a WSJ event last night with Jared Kushner. I literally laughed out loud with all of BS that he was spewing. It was ridiculous. I worked on the Hill when Clinton was impeached. I can't help but see the Republicans cry foul when they said the exact opposite of what they are saying now. Which is it Republicans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, then stop saying Democrats have been calling for Trump's impeachment since he was elected. That's just Democrats being Democrats!

They literally have been looking for a reason since January 2017.

Nope, just Democrats being Democrats!

Except I distinctly remember that Democrats made all of these points against Trump in 2016. He said mean things about judges and Hillary Clinton and he was unfit to be president. Whereas Trump did not hide that he had a lousy temperament, Democrats on the whole (AOC and the squad notwithstanding) tried their best not to mention impeachment during the 2018 midterms. So voters knew what they were getting into with Trump but not with House Democrats.

Right. This is one of the biggest jokes! House Democrats who flipped republican districts in 2018 because the voters approved of Trump, but voted for the Democrat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was at a WSJ event last night with Jared Kushner. I literally laughed out loud with all of BS that he was spewing. It was ridiculous. I worked on the Hill when Clinton was impeached. I can't help but see the Republicans cry foul when they said the exact opposite of what they are saying now. Which is it Republicans?

But you can replace "Republicans" with "Democrats" and say the same thing. Some of us don't think Clinton should have been impeached and also have issues with the Trump impeachment. Both impeachments are based on process crimes when the primary investigation (Starr for Clinton, Mueller for Trump) failed to dig up the dirt the partisans had hoped. And I think the Trump impeachment will backfire on Democrats like the Clinton impeachment did on Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is bullshit. He was responding directly to the question of what it was that he wanted Zelensky to do in the phone call, and he responded that Ukraine should investigate the Bidens and then added that China also should investigate the Bidens. So this was not the same as his campaign rally call for illegal interference from Russia, this was in response to a direct question from a reporter about what it was that he expected of Zelensky. And this is 100% reinforced by other statements he has made, that Giuliani has made, that Mulvaney has made, that Sondland has made, that Volker has made, and that the patriotic bureaucratic witnesses heard.

By saying "what it was he expected of Zelensky" you're claiming that Trump said he expected to Zelensky to launch a probe of Biden in exchange for getting aid. That is absolutely not what Trump said, and I think you know it. He said, and he continues to say, that he thinks Ukraine and China should investigate Hunter Biden because he thinks he engaged in corrupt behavior. If the person Obama were trying to leverage foreign governments into investigating were a popular squeaky clean figure like Obama then I agree voters would probably care. But Hunter Biden is a scumbag and Democrats know that they need to treat lightly.

DP. Why does he only care about Hunter Biden's allegedly corrupt behavior? And why does he care about it now? He provided aid to Ukraine to other times during his presidency, after Hunter Biden existed and after Burisma existed.

Why now?

Why don't you google Hunter Biden and read about some of the lovely things he has been up to lately.

When Hunter Biden runs for President, I will care, otherwise, it's not like he is a white house employee raking in $82M from outside, undisclosed sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, then stop saying Democrats have been calling for Trump's impeachment since he was elected. That's just Democrats being Democrats!

They literally have been looking for a reason since January 2017.

Nope, just Democrats being Democrats!

Except I distinctly remember that Democrats made all of these points against Trump in 2016. He said mean things about judges and Hillary Clinton and he was unfit to be president. Whereas Trump did not hide that he had a lousy temperament, Democrats on the whole (AOC and the squad notwithstanding) tried their best not to mention impeachment during the 2018 midterms. So voters knew what they were getting into with Trump but not with House Democrats.

Right. This is one of the biggest jokes! House Democrats who flipped republican districts in 2018 because the voters approved of Trump, but voted for the Democrat!

I'm done arguing with simple people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was at a WSJ event last night with Jared Kushner. I literally laughed out loud with all of BS that he was spewing. It was ridiculous. I worked on the Hill when Clinton was impeached. I can't help but see the Republicans cry foul when they said the exact opposite of what they are saying now. Which is it Republicans?

But you can replace "Republicans" with "Democrats" and say the same thing. Some of us don't think Clinton should have been impeached and also have issues with the Trump impeachment. Both impeachments are based on process crimes when the primary investigation (Starr for Clinton, Mueller for Trump) failed to dig up the dirt the partisans had hoped. And I think the Trump impeachment will backfire on Democrats like the Clinton impeachment did on Republicans.

Clinton committed perjury in a legal proceeding.
Trump is in violation of the Emoluments clause on a daily basis and has multiple examples of abusing his power including most recently, with Ukraine.

They aren't on the same scale, but if Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying about a blowjob, then it should be a slam dunk for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is bullshit. He was responding directly to the question of what it was that he wanted Zelensky to do in the phone call, and he responded that Ukraine should investigate the Bidens and then added that China also should investigate the Bidens. So this was not the same as his campaign rally call for illegal interference from Russia, this was in response to a direct question from a reporter about what it was that he expected of Zelensky. And this is 100% reinforced by other statements he has made, that Giuliani has made, that Mulvaney has made, that Sondland has made, that Volker has made, and that the patriotic bureaucratic witnesses heard.

By saying "what it was he expected of Zelensky" you're claiming that Trump said he expected to Zelensky to launch a probe of Biden in exchange for getting aid. That is absolutely not what Trump said, and I think you know it. He said, and he continues to say, that he thinks Ukraine and China should investigate Hunter Biden because he thinks he engaged in corrupt behavior. If the person Obama were trying to leverage foreign governments into investigating were a popular squeaky clean figure like Obama then I agree voters would probably care. But Hunter Biden is a scumbag and Democrats know that they need to treat lightly.

DP. Why does he only care about Hunter Biden's allegedly corrupt behavior? And why does he care about it now? He provided aid to Ukraine to other times during his presidency, after Hunter Biden existed and after Burisma existed.

Why now?

Why don't you google Hunter Biden and read about some of the lovely things he has been up to lately.

When Hunter Biden runs for President, I will care, otherwise, it's not like he is a white house employee raking in $82M from outside, undisclosed sources.

I'm trying to make a point as to why the Democrats have to be careful. Since you frequent this site, you probably are more sophisticated than the average voter, who will only understand that Biden admitted to getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and that prosecutor's office may have at one point been looking at investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked for. They will see it as not great judgment on Biden's part, and be turned off by some of the other activities by the junior Biden. He's not a good witness (and he will be an impeachment trial witness, 100%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, then stop saying Democrats have been calling for Trump's impeachment since he was elected. That's just Democrats being Democrats!

They literally have been looking for a reason since January 2017.

Nope, just Democrats being Democrats!

Except I distinctly remember that Democrats made all of these points against Trump in 2016. He said mean things about judges and Hillary Clinton and he was unfit to be president. Whereas Trump did not hide that he had a lousy temperament, Democrats on the whole (AOC and the squad notwithstanding) tried their best not to mention impeachment during the 2018 midterms. So voters knew what they were getting into with Trump but not with House Democrats.

Right. This is one of the biggest jokes! House Democrats who flipped republican districts in 2018 because the voters approved of Trump, but voted for the Democrat!

I'm done arguing with simple people.

PP doesn't really mean that. That's just PP being PP!

[Anonymous]

For the people saying Democrats having been "looking" for a reason to impeach -- they haven't had to look too hard (but note they didn't have the House until last year):

- Before November 2016 Trump campaign met with Russia under the auspices of finding "dirt" on Trump's opponent, before we knew this we saw him "jokingly" solicit their interference
- He used and continues to use his hotel(s) as places for foreign leaders to stay and hold events
- He used and continues to use taxpayer money to create revenue for his businesses from which he has not divested/followed the terms of his alleged divestment, through his golf trips, government events at his properties, making the Secret Service rent golf carts, and so on
- His "being mean" to judges as PP mentioned was actually public calling out of judicial decisions and an utter disregard for separation of powers
- He had inappropriate relationship(s) with agencies that are supposedly independent, such as DOJ and FBI
- He fired the former FBI director for not ignoring the actions of Michael Flynn, an act to which he admitted publicly on a tv interview
- He publicly made attempts to intimidate witnesses going before Congress and as key witnesses Grand Jury investigations

and rounded all that out with an attempt to extort the Ukrainian president into investigating his newly announced political opponent, conditioned on -- and only on -- the announcement of said investigation to the media.

Am I missing anything? What else do you need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was at a WSJ event last night with Jared Kushner. I literally laughed out loud with all of BS that he was spewing. It was ridiculous. I worked on the Hill when Clinton was impeached. I can't help but see the Republicans cry foul when they said the exact opposite of what they are saying now. Which is it Republicans?

But you can replace "Republicans" with "Democrats" and say the same thing. Some of us don't think Clinton should have been impeached and also have issues with the Trump impeachment. Both impeachments are based on process crimes when the primary investigation (Starr for Clinton, Mueller for Trump) failed to dig up the dirt the partisans had hoped. And I think the Trump impeachment will backfire on Democrats like the Clinton impeachment did on Republicans.

Clinton committed perjury in a legal proceeding.
Trump is in violation of the Emoluments clause on a daily basis and has multiple examples of abusing his power including most recently, with Ukraine.

They aren't on the same scale, but if Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying about a blowjob, then it should be a slam dunk for Trump.

Emoluments clause is not what he is being impeached for. It's almost as though you really don't like the guy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was at a WSJ event last night with Jared Kushner. I literally laughed out loud with all of BS that he was spewing. It was ridiculous. I worked on the Hill when Clinton was impeached. I can't help but see the Republicans cry foul when they said the exact opposite of what they are saying now. Which is it Republicans?

But you can replace "Republicans" with "Democrats" and say the same thing. Some of us don't think Clinton should have been impeached and also have issues with the Trump impeachment. Both impeachments are based on process crimes when the primary investigation (Starr for Clinton, Mueller for Trump) failed to dig up the dirt the partisans had hoped. And I think the Trump impeachment will backfire on Democrats like the Clinton impeachment did on Republicans.

Trump using public money to shake down Ukraine for political favors isn't a "process crime."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people saying Democrats having been "looking" for a reason to impeach -- they haven't had to look too hard (but note they didn't have the House until last year):

- Before November 2016 Trump campaign met with Russia under the auspices of finding "dirt" on Trump's opponent, before we knew this we saw him "jokingly" solicit their interference
- He used and continues to use his hotel(s) as places for foreign leaders to stay and hold events
- He used and continues to use taxpayer money to create revenue for his businesses from which he has not divested/followed the terms of his alleged divestment, through his golf trips, government events at his properties, making the Secret Service rent golf carts, and so on
- His "being mean" to judges as PP mentioned was actually public calling out of judicial decisions and an utter disregard for separation of powers
- He had inappropriate relationship(s) with agencies that are supposedly independent, such as DOJ and FBI
- He fired the former FBI director for not ignoring the actions of Michael Flynn, an act to which he admitted publicly on a tv interview
- He publicly made attempts to intimidate witnesses going before Congress and as key witnesses Grand Jury investigations

and rounded all that out with an attempt to extort the Ukrainian president into investigating his newly announced political opponent, conditioned on -- and only on -- the announcement of said investigation to the media.

Am I missing anything? What else do you need?

+ he told Don McGahn to create a false record to conceal the fact that he (Trump) demanded that McGahn fire Mueller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the people saying Democrats having been "looking" for a reason to impeach -- they haven't had to look too hard (but note they didn't have the House until last year):

- Before November 2016 Trump campaign met with Russia under the auspices of finding "dirt" on Trump's opponent, before we knew this we saw him "jokingly" solicit their interference Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use his hotel(s) as places for foreign leaders to stay and hold events Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use taxpayer money to create revenue for his businesses from which he has not divested/followed the terms of his alleged divestment, through his golf trips, government events at his properties, making the Secret Service rent golf carts, and so on Not what he's being impeached for
- His "being mean" to judges as PP mentioned was actually public calling out of judicial decisions and an utter disregard for separation of powers Not what he's being impeached for
- He had inappropriate relationship(s) with agencies that are supposedly independent, such as DOJ and FBI Not what he's being impeached for
- He fired the former FBI director for not ignoring the actions of Michael Flynn, an act to which he admitted publicly on a tv interview Not what he's being impeached for
- He publicly made attempts to intimidate witnesses going before Congress and as key witnesses Grand Jury investigations Not what he's being impeached for

and rounded all that out with an attempt to extort the Ukrainian president into investigating his newly announced political opponent, conditioned on -- and only on -- the announcement of said investigation to the media.

Am I missing anything? What else do you need?

See above in bold

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people saying Democrats having been "looking" for a reason to impeach -- they haven't had to look too hard (but note they didn't have the House until last year):

- Before November 2016 Trump campaign met with Russia under the auspices of finding "dirt" on Trump's opponent, before we knew this we saw him "jokingly" solicit their interference Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use his hotel(s) as places for foreign leaders to stay and hold events Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use taxpayer money to create revenue for his businesses from which he has not divested/followed the terms of his alleged divestment, through his golf trips, government events at his properties, making the Secret Service rent golf carts, and so on Not what he's being impeached for
- His "being mean" to judges as PP mentioned was actually public calling out of judicial decisions and an utter disregard for separation of powers Not what he's being impeached for
- He had inappropriate relationship(s) with agencies that are supposedly independent, such as DOJ and FBI Not what he's being impeached for
- He fired the former FBI director for not ignoring the actions of Michael Flynn, an act to which he admitted publicly on a tv interview Not what he's being impeached for
- He publicly made attempts to intimidate witnesses going before Congress and as key witnesses Grand Jury investigations Not what he's being impeached for

and rounded all that out with an attempt to extort the Ukrainian president into investigating his newly announced political opponent, conditioned on -- and only on -- the announcement of said investigation to the media.

Am I missing anything? What else do you need?

See above in bold

That isn't what he's being impeached for, but those are plenty fine for impeachment. The Democrats controlled none of Congress during this time, and would have had not way to actually advance an impeachment. They are being strategic and that in itself does not mean their impeachment articles don't have basis.