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: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.

But he was holding up the aid and the White House meeting at the time of the call and he should never ever request anything of personal or political benefit or even speak about a political opponent or a political benefit for himself when he is talking to a foreign leader who is desperate for U.S. support. WTF is wrong with you people.

They still withholding full support for Ukraine against Russia while the criminal conspiracy keeps trolling the bottom of the barrel of corrupt Ukrainians who will talk to John Solomon and Sean Hannity about the Bidens and 2016. They are still pressuring Zelensky to make an allegation against Biden and against Ukraine for 2016.

Just stop gaslighting us and admit that you believe that Trump is above the law. Because that is all you have.

[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

DP. What was the bolded supposed to add or imply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the examples you gave aren't the basis for impeachment articles for a reason - they are the typical reasons that Democrats don't like Trump, but they don't rise to the level of impeachable! The "separation of powers" is my favorite. I forgot that Congress impeached Ruth Bader Ginsburg for calling out Trump! Or that FDR was impeached for threatening to pack the courts!

Democrats won the house in 2018 - it took a year to find something that would work. That's fine, I agree that the Ukraine allegations are the strongest of the bunch that the Democrats have. But I do not think they are going to move the needle much.

[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

DP, but these are all things Trump *could* be impeached for. The democrats are being strategic in keeping these articles very tight as it relates solely to Ukraine. It keep Mueller, Emoluments and everything else out of the water. It is hard to throw dirt at it because the testimony and texts/documents are solid evidence against the Administration. If Trump had anything that could clear him, he would have used it. If there was anyone who could testify in his defense, they would have come forward. They didn't, so the record is what it is, no material facts are challenged, and it is open an shut. The GOP can choose to ignore it, but it will send the signal that any future presidents, assuming there are any after this one, won't have to answer subpeonas, won't have a co-equal branch of government and is pretty much above the law.

I am hard pressed to understand on the face of it why anyone would support that, but my only presumption is, the GOP is making a sprint to full authoritarianism in an effort to subjugate non-Trump cultists to second class status for generations to come.

[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.

But he was holding up the aid and the White House meeting at the time of the call and he should never ever request anything of personal or political benefit or even speak about a political opponent or a political benefit for himself when he is talking to a foreign leader who is desperate for U.S. support. WTF is wrong with you people.

They still withholding full support for Ukraine against Russia while the criminal conspiracy keeps trolling the bottom of the barrel of corrupt Ukrainians who will talk to John Solomon and Sean Hannity about the Bidens and 2016. They are still pressuring Zelensky to make an allegation against Biden and against Ukraine for 2016.

Just stop gaslighting us and admit that you believe that Trump is above the law. Because that is all you have.

I'm not gaslighting anyone (look up what the word means and report back). We just have a different interpretation of what Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine funding meant. Democrats strongly dislike Trump and believe it means one thing. Republicans think it means another.

[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.

But he was holding up the aid and the White House meeting at the time of the call and he should never ever request anything of personal or political benefit or even speak about a political opponent or a political benefit for himself when he is talking to a foreign leader who is desperate for U.S. support. WTF is wrong with you people.

They still withholding full support for Ukraine against Russia while the criminal conspiracy keeps trolling the bottom of the barrel of corrupt Ukrainians who will talk to John Solomon and Sean Hannity about the Bidens and 2016. They are still pressuring Zelensky to make an allegation against Biden and against Ukraine for 2016.

Just stop gaslighting us and admit that you believe that Trump is above the law. Because that is all you have.

I'm not gaslighting anyone (look up what the word means and report back). We just have a different interpretation of what Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine funding meant. Democrats strongly dislike Trump and believe it means one thing. Republicans think it means another.

Republicans have mostly left the party. All that's left are dummies and crazies. And crazy dummies.

- Never Trumper who left the party years ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the examples you gave aren't the basis for impeachment articles for a reason - they are the typical reasons that Democrats don't like Trump, but they don't rise to the level of impeachable! The "separation of powers" is my favorite. I forgot that Congress impeached Ruth Bader Ginsburg for calling out Trump! Or that FDR was impeached for threatening to pack the courts!

Democrats won the house in 2018 - it took a year to find something that would work. That's fine, I agree that the Ukraine allegations are the strongest of the bunch that the Democrats have. But I do not think they are going to move the needle much.

Democrats took the house in the 2018 elections and took control in January, 2019. This effort re: Ukraine, started in the late fall of 2018. So as Rudy was spouting off and all of the weird things started happening in March and April, it became apparent what was happening. The dems had no choice but to impeach based on the facts of the case. Otherwise, we may was well declare Trump above the law and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the examples you gave aren't the basis for impeachment articles for a reason - they are the typical reasons that Democrats don't like Trump, but they don't rise to the level of impeachable! The "separation of powers" is my favorite. I forgot that Congress impeached Ruth Bader Ginsburg for calling out Trump! Or that FDR was impeached for threatening to pack the courts!

Democrats won the house in 2018 - it took a year to find something that would work. That's fine, I agree that the Ukraine allegations are the strongest of the bunch that the Democrats have. But I do not think they are going to move the needle much.

Where do you see a document that says what articles of impeachment can be? The Constitution leaves it pretty vague, and leaves it a process for congress to determine. There is certainly no rule that says that impeachment articles have to be based on what they've been in the past, either.

Taking advantage of his position as president to make money through his businesses isn't an abuse of power?

Intimidation of witnesses, firing Comey, couldn't be obstruction of justice?

Again, you seem to want to disregard what the actual impeachment articles are because there have been other impeachable offenses that haven't actually had formal inquiry or drafting the way these have. You can see the logical fallacy of that argument, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That list of "impeachable offenses" is amazing. Thank you. I was just shocked that Nancy didn't have the articles of impeachment ready on day one after Trump was mean to that judge before he was elected president!

See above in bold

DP, but these are all things Trump *could* be impeached for. The democrats are being strategic in keeping these articles very tight as it relates solely to Ukraine. It keep Mueller, Emoluments and everything else out of the water. It is hard to throw dirt at it because the testimony and texts/documents are solid evidence against the Administration. If Trump had anything that could clear him, he would have used it. If there was anyone who could testify in his defense, they would have come forward. They didn't, so the record is what it is, no material facts are challenged, and it is open an shut. The GOP can choose to ignore it, but it will send the signal that any future presidents, assuming there are any after this one, won't have to answer subpeonas, won't have a co-equal branch of government and is pretty much above the law.

I am hard pressed to understand on the face of it why anyone would support that, but my only presumption is, the GOP is making a sprint to full authoritarianism in an effort to subjugate non-Trump cultists to second class status for generations to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not gaslighting anyone (look up what the word means and report back). We just have a different interpretation of what Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine funding meant. Democrats strongly dislike Trump and believe it means one thing. Republicans think it means another.

When people are working from different sets of facts, or dispense with facts all together, then the conclusions are necessarily going to be different. In this case, the facts are not with the people who follow Trump, the president of 13,000+ lies and Fox News, his propaganda arm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the examples you gave aren't the basis for impeachment articles for a reason - they are the typical reasons that Democrats don't like Trump, but they don't rise to the level of impeachable! The "separation of powers" is my favorite. I forgot that Congress impeached Ruth Bader Ginsburg for calling out Trump! Or that FDR was impeached for threatening to pack the courts!

Democrats won the house in 2018 - it took a year to find something that would work. That's fine, I agree that the Ukraine allegations are the strongest of the bunch that the Democrats have. But I do not think they are going to move the needle much.

Where do you see a document that says what articles of impeachment can be? The Constitution leaves it pretty vague, and leaves it a process for congress to determine. There is certainly no rule that says that impeachment articles have to be based on what they've been in the past, either.

Taking advantage of his position as president to make money through his businesses isn't an abuse of power?

Intimidation of witnesses, firing Comey, couldn't be obstruction of justice?

Again, you seem to want to disregard what the actual impeachment articles are because there have been other impeachable offenses that haven't actually had formal inquiry or drafting the way these have. You can see the logical fallacy of that argument, right?[/

You miss the point my friend. I said that the Ukraine allegations are the best point the Democrats have made. The other points may be favored by the left but are weak arguments (being mean to a judge before he was elected President really annoyed democrats, and it certainly wasn't presidential, but it isn't a great separation of powers issue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the examples you gave aren't the basis for impeachment articles for a reason - they are the typical reasons that Democrats don't like Trump, but they don't rise to the level of impeachable! The "separation of powers" is my favorite. I forgot that Congress impeached Ruth Bader Ginsburg for calling out Trump! Or that FDR was impeached for threatening to pack the courts!

Democrats won the house in 2018 - it took a year to find something that would work. That's fine, I agree that the Ukraine allegations are the strongest of the bunch that the Democrats have. But I do not think they are going to move the needle much.

Where do you see a document that says what articles of impeachment can be? The Constitution leaves it pretty vague, and leaves it a process for congress to determine. There is certainly no rule that says that impeachment articles have to be based on what they've been in the past, either.

Taking advantage of his position as president to make money through his businesses isn't an abuse of power?

Intimidation of witnesses, firing Comey, couldn't be obstruction of justice?

Again, you seem to want to disregard what the actual impeachment articles are because there have been other impeachable offenses that haven't actually had formal inquiry or drafting the way these have. You can see the logical fallacy of that argument, right?

You miss the point my friend. I said that the Ukraine allegations are the best point the Democrats have made. The other points may be favored by the left but are weak arguments (being mean to a judge before he was elected President really annoyed democrats, and it certainly wasn't presidential, but it isn't a great separation of powers issue).

[Anonymous]

They are all stronger arguments than lying a bout a blowjob, but with a complicit Senate, it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not gaslighting anyone (look up what the word means and report back). We just have a different interpretation of what Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine funding meant. Democrats strongly dislike Trump and believe it means one thing. Republicans think it means another.

When people are working from different sets of facts, or dispense with facts all together, then the conclusions are necessarily going to be different. In this case, the facts are not with the people who follow Trump, the president of 13,000+ lies and Fox News, his propaganda arm.

A President does not have discretion to withhold such aid unless he goes through a particular formal process, which he did not.

There is no way to read that fact ‘differently.’