Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far this hearing has been tedious and almost boring.

I say this as someone who listened to the impeachment hearings for Nixon and Clinton. Those hearings - especially the one for Nixon - was riveting. This has been a sleeper so far and I say this as someone who is a political junkie.

This seems to b the right-wing talking point. It's boring.

I am a Democrat; the goal of these hearings is to turn public opinion in favor of impeachment and removal of the president.

DP. Many people don’t need a hearing to do that. We all see the President’s behavior, and are concerned. But we respect the process.

Signed,
The American Republic

Partisans on both sides have already made up their minds - the hearings make no difference. There is a broad swath of voters who are independent or still wonder if impeachment is the best course of action. They are the ones who need to get on board if one is to have any hope that 20 Republican senators will vote to remove the president.

Very liberal girlfriend just said that the impeachment is a joke. After mueller, Dems need to focus on winning elections and not this political crap

Hmm

That's nice. I'm also a "very liberal" women and learned a lot today and welcome getting this all on the record. I have zero expectations that GOP will do their constitutional duty but it I'm glad to see patriots like Kent and Taylor, stand up for the the right thing.

[Anonymous]

The Rs voices get pitchy when they have to promote positions that they know are antithetical to our nation's values. Its interesting to watch, even in interviews. Really, really sad to watch them do this to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s campaign chairman was one of the worst offenders. He made millions sucking Ukraine dry. If Trump was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why hire Manafort?

They also pressured the Ukrainian government to stop cooperating with the Mueller probe in order to protect Manafort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all need to decide, when you vote in 2020, whether or not you want future Presidents to be free to use the power of the office and public funds to coerce foreign governments to take actions that would personally and politically benefit said future-President.

If that if the future you want, then by all means continue to support Trump.

Trump is helping Ukraine.
Dems did not.

Others have responded to your ridiculous deflecting lie. Now back to the actual question: Do you want future Presidents to be free to use the power of the office and public funds to coerce foreign governments to take actions that would personally and politically benefit said future-President?

[Anonymous]

Trump is going to win reelection unless the Democrats offer a palatable alternative - impeachment or no impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From twitter:

Jim Jordan complains that the whistleblower who set the Ukraine impeachment inquiry in motion hasn't been called in to testify publicly.

Peter Welch responds that he'd welcome the person who actually started the Ukraine mess -- President Trump -- to testify before Congress.


Would not that me must-see TV!

Welch gave the best quip of the day. It even shut up that idiot Jordan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all need to decide, when you vote in 2020, whether or not you want future Presidents to be free to use the power of the office and public funds to coerce foreign governments to take actions that would personally and politically benefit said future-President.

If that if the future you want, then by all means continue to support Trump.

Trump is helping Ukraine.
Dems did not.

Others have responded to your ridiculous deflecting lie. Now back to the actual question: Do you want future Presidents to be free to use the power of the office and public funds to coerce foreign governments to take actions that would personally and politically benefit said future-President?

No and neither did the founders. This is described in the Constitution as un-Constitutional. Just read it (Constitution, not transcript).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary: “I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you were messing around.”

REO Speedwagon

The point of the song is that she *is* messing around, and he just doesn't want to believe it. Because believing it would threaten the cozy illusion he has set up for himself and reveal that his trust is misplaced, and that he has been had by a con artist.

For the love of all that is holy, do not invoke REO Speedwagon in defense of that lying criminal.

I heard it from a career diplomat who
Heard it from another career diplomat who
Heard it from the president's spokesman who
Heard it from the transcript (actually summary)
that Trump's been messin' around

They say he's been extortioning and
He's up late Tweeting and
Thinkin' of ways to do Putin's bidding.

His tales grow taller on down the line.
But he's so screwed, babe,
Believe it's true babe;
And keep this in mind.

Using the power of the presidency to extort the head of state of a foreign government to benefit yourself politically is an impeachable offence, baby.

It's Misuse of Office, baby.
And word gets around.

He's under the gun, so he's taking it on the run.
If that's the way he wants it baby
Then we don't want him around.

[Anonymous]

Tough for anyone other than partisans to take this move to impeach seriously.

Democrats have been talking about impeaching the president ever since he won election - literally before he assumed the Oval office. The Mueller investigation bliew up in their faces. Now they are relying on second hand or third hand evidence to argue that a president should be removed. I seriously doubt that it will fly. Those who support impeachment are partisans.

There is no way that those screaming about impeachment would give any credence to the same evidence if it had been a Democratic president.

All that this has done is to create an environment that will ensure that a Democratic president is impeached by a Republican controlled House using similar flimsy evidence. Unfortunate ..........

[Anonymous]

A must read- Mr Kent’s opening statement. The State Department has some amazing public servants
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.axios.com/george-kent-opening-statement-impeachment-hearing-beff71d3-ea62-41df-b23c-87d610d107c5.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tough for anyone other than partisans to take this move to impeach seriously.

Democrats have been talking about impeaching the president ever since he won election - literally before he assumed the Oval office. The Mueller investigation bliew up in their faces. Now they are relying on second hand or third hand evidence to argue that a president should be removed. I seriously doubt that it will fly. Those who support impeachment are partisans.

There is no way that those screaming about impeachment would give any credence to the same evidence if it had been a Democratic president.

All that this has done is to create an environment that will ensure that a Democratic president is impeached by a Republican controlled House using similar flimsy evidence. Unfortunate ..........

Can you give us an example of something that Trump might do that you would find impeachable? TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tough for anyone other than partisans to take this move to impeach seriously.

Democrats have been talking about impeaching the president ever since he won election - literally before he assumed the Oval office. The Mueller investigation bliew up in their faces. Now they are relying on second hand or third hand evidence to argue that a president should be removed. I seriously doubt that it will fly. Those who support impeachment are partisans.

There is no way that those screaming about impeachment would give any credence to the same evidence if it had been a Democratic president.

All that this has done is to create an environment that will ensure that a Democratic president is impeached by a Republican controlled House using similar flimsy evidence. Unfortunate ..........

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Rs sound like shrill shrews! Very uncomfortable to watch. "What is impeachable, what is impeachable..." And Taylor trying to say, "I don't determine what is impeachable, that's up to the House.."
To above pp, White house released the transcript, how is that second hand evidence?

[Anonymous]

Gratuitous post alert:

The democratic attorney could totally hit it. He’s got a major sexy-smart aura.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tough for anyone other than partisans to take this move to impeach seriously.

Democrats have been talking about impeaching the president ever since he won election - literally before he assumed the Oval office. The Mueller investigation bliew up in their faces. Now they are relying on second hand or third hand evidence to argue that a president should be removed. I seriously doubt that it will fly. Those who support impeachment are partisans.

There is no way that those screaming about impeachment would give any credence to the same evidence if it had been a Democratic president.

All that this has done is to create an environment that will ensure that a Democratic president is impeached by a Republican controlled House using similar flimsy evidence. Unfortunate ..........

Trump himself provided the evidence - the phone call. And his chief of staff confirmed it.