Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

DP. So you don't believe they have exculpatory evidence. Right. Nobody with a brain does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

They were screaming for two years about collusion, conspiracy, etc. etc. and said that they had hard evidence of both. Both of those sound reeeeaaaaallllly bad to me.

What's your point? Do you know what the articles of impeachment are? Do you know what they'll be voting on tomorrow?

Yes, I know what they are. My point is that PP is saying that the Dems weren't worried about impeachment before Ukraine because before that, it was just piddly stuff....and that now is the really bad stuff. Bunk. The whole two year collusion investigation was supposed to be the big precursor to impeachment. Dem after Dem called for impeachment for a variety of things. Joaquin Castro said he should have been impeached because of the travel ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

They were screaming for two years about collusion, conspiracy, etc. etc. and said that they had hard evidence of both. Both of those sound reeeeaaaaallllly bad to me.

What's your point? Do you know what the articles of impeachment are? Do you know what they'll be voting on tomorrow?

Yes, I know what they are. My point is that PP is saying that the Dems weren't worried about impeachment before Ukraine because before that, it was just piddly stuff....and that now is the really bad stuff. Bunk. The whole two year collusion investigation was supposed to be the big precursor to impeachment. Dem after Dem called for impeachment for a variety of things. Joaquin Castro said he should have been impeached because of the travel ban.

But he wasn't...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With one simple move, Trump could wipe out both impeachment articles. By allowing Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton to testify, there would be no obstruction of Congress. And presumably, they could disprove abuse of power

So if he's truly innocent, ask yourself why he's not doing that

Because even if they did, and had complete exculpatory evidence, it wouldn't matter. The Dems would find something else to charge him with.

The Dems didn't impeach him for the emoluments stuff or for the Scotland plane stuff or for any other piddling little shenanigans. It was only when Trump did something reeeaaaalllly bad did they move towards impeaching him.

They were screaming for two years about collusion, conspiracy, etc. etc. and said that they had hard evidence of both. Both of those sound reeeeaaaaallllly bad to me.

What's your point? Do you know what the articles of impeachment are? Do you know what they'll be voting on tomorrow?

Yes, I know what they are. My point is that PP is saying that the Dems weren't worried about impeachment before Ukraine because before that, it was just piddly stuff....and that now is the really bad stuff. Bunk. The whole two year collusion investigation was supposed to be the big precursor to impeachment. Dem after Dem called for impeachment for a variety of things. Joaquin Castro said he should have been impeached because of the travel ban.

But he wasn't...

But wait, they had hard evidence, didn't they? They had hard evidence of collusion, conspiracy, blah, blah, blah, now they have what they swear is first hand evidence of bribery, extortion, etc. Last time I checked, none of the articles mention any of these.

[Anonymous]

^ abuse of power covers it.
Why are you getting lost in the weeds with this? The call is clear. Trump and Mulvaney have publicly stated the intent of the call. It’s an abuse of power ( because it’s extortion and bribery, only capable of being commited due to his position in office)

[Anonymous]

As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

Democrats needs to stop being wuss. Not impeaching Trump will backfire even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

Democrats needs to stop being wuss. Not impeaching Trump will backfire even worse.

+1

We cannot and should not have both parties derelict of their Constitutional duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

Democrats needs to stop being wuss. Not impeaching Trump will backfire even worse.

+1

We cannot and should not have both parties derelict of their Constitutional duties.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

Democrats needs to stop being wuss. Not impeaching Trump will backfire even worse.

+1

We cannot and should not have both parties derelict of their Constitutional duties.

+1

Long time ago I had written a many Democrats that I would not be donating if they do not hold this totally unruly, narcissist to task. If there is no accountability what use is a house majority? Senate is already complicit. There is honor in dying fighting for what is moral and just than to live in shame because of fear of defeat.

Democrats need to play hardball and need better messaging management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I don’t like Trump, I believe this is about to backfire on the Dems and will therefore bolster carrot top’s chances next year.

Democrats needs to stop being wuss. Not impeaching Trump will backfire even worse.

+1

We cannot and should not have both parties derelict of their Constitutional duties.

+1

Long time ago I had written a many Democrats that I would not be donating if they do not hold this totally unruly, narcissist to task. If there is no accountability what use is a house majority? Senate is already complicit. There is honor in dying fighting for what is moral and just than to live in shame because of fear of defeat.

Democrats need to play hardball and need better messaging management.

+1

It needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Senator Chris Murphy says he met privately with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Murphy makes it clear Zelensky felt pressure from Trump. Murphy told Zelensky the set of facts against Trump on the aid money, and Zelensky didn’t dispute anything. Trump should resign.

[Anonymous]

Is it "Happy Impeachment Day" or "Merry Impeachment Day?"

I don't want to offend anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senator Chris Murphy says he met privately with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Murphy makes it clear Zelensky felt pressure from Trump. Murphy told Zelensky the set of facts against Trump on the aid money, and Zelensky didn’t dispute anything. Trump should resign.

So, he is calling Zelensky a liar when he has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senator Chris Murphy says he met privately with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Murphy makes it clear Zelensky felt pressure from Trump. Murphy told Zelensky the set of facts against Trump on the aid money, and Zelensky didn’t dispute anything. Trump should resign.

Sorry, it is tough to believe him when his story has changed....

Murphy, who traveled to Ukraine and other European nations in early September with Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), has given inconsistent characterizations of his Sept. 5 meeting with Zelensky over the past two weeks, as Trump's conversations with Zelensky have drawn national and international attention. If, as Murphy says, Zelensky expressed grave concern over the administration’s actions, the Connecticut senator appears to have kept mum about it for over two weeks.

Murphy initially told news reporters in a Sept. 11 briefing that the Ukrainian president was "flummoxed" by the administration’s suspension of aid and wanted to reach a resolution to keep it flowing. Neither Zelensky nor any other official he spoke with brought up political requests from the Trump administration, he said, adding that they "didn't talk in depth" about the issue.

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/sen-chris-murphy-changes-his-story-on-zelensky-meeting/