Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

CNN confirms the proposed Zalensky interview.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/zelensky-was-planning-to-announce-trumps-quid-pro-quo-on-my-show-heres-what-happened/2019/11/14/47938f32-072a-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545


Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.


If your strategy involves calling everyday Americans “deeply stupid”, I hope you enjoy losing.

So far the strategy seems to be to try to get the evidence out for the public to see. I don't think a random DC poster's comment is anything more than a DC poster's opinion . . . it's hardly the election strategy.

I would keep my eye on the evidence provided in the formal hearings. However, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Doesn’t it look like a massive conflict of interest to have Hunter’s LLC receive $3.1 million from a Ukrainian gas company not long after his father was named the Obama Administration’s “point man” on Ukraine in February 2014? This is corruption. Why do so many people have a hard time admitting it?

President Trump used the power of his office to extort a head of state for his own political gain.

President Trump is who we are discussing, here. Once he has been dealt with, if you want to go after Biden, have at it.

If we decide that the rule of law is important, that is.

If the Constitution is "phony" and fake news, then what the hell does it matter what Hunter Biden did?

I know you really, really, really, really, really want to believe this, but there is zero proof or indication of this.

There's plenty of evidence, actually. I know you really, really, really don't want to admit it.

But that is exactly what the President did.

He didn't have to say in explicit words "Now I am going to extort you!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Doesn’t it look like a massive conflict of interest to have Hunter’s LLC receive $3.1 million from a Ukrainian gas company not long after his father was named the Obama Administration’s “point man” on Ukraine in February 2014? This is corruption. Why do so many people have a hard time admitting it?

President Trump used the power of his office to extort a head of state for his own political gain.

President Trump is who we are discussing, here. Once he has been dealt with, if you want to go after Biden, have at it.

If we decide that the rule of law is important, that is.

If the Constitution is "phony" and fake news, then what the hell does it matter what Hunter Biden did?

I know you really, really, really, really, really want to believe this, but there is zero proof or indication of this.

You know sworn testimony is the opposite of “zero indication,” right? What a ridiculous comment, PP.

+1
If this is zero to PP I want to know what 'a little bit' looks like. Because to me, and to at least half the country, it looks like a lot.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, the statue for bribery says "solicitation" - ie, the ask. It doesn't need to be executed.

The originalist definition of bribery is even looser, and Trump has violated that as well.

So, are people willing to excuse both the 2019 definition of the crime and the 1787 definition of bribery in this proceeding?

If the answer is yes, then we don't have a Constitution anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But, as Nancy says, "It's not political." Nah. Not at all.
And, they are being "prayerful." Yep. Praying that this finally takes him down.

For good reason.

Trump's character was on display, right from the very beginning. We knew exactly what he was when he was nominated.

After he was elected some people hoped he would somehow change his character but most of us knew a 70 year old man doesn't change who he is.

He is a self serving, egotistical narcissist who actually, truly, doesn't give a DAMN about the Constitution he swore to uphold. Did you read his tweet about the "phony Emoluments Clause"? Mr. President, which other parts of the Constitution do you think are phony?

He shows contempt for the rule of law; contempt of Congress, contempt of judges, and contempt of the Constitution. Is that even a thing? Trump might be the reason we have to make Contempt of Constitution a thing.

You are right, we prayed for him to be taken down (through legal, Constitutional means) as he is unfit for his office. Many of us prayed that would happen from the day he took office.

But he is bringing this on himself by his own actions. We did not cause him to speak on unsecure cell phones and to put pressure on the President of Ukraine to start an investigation that was only to benefit Trump's reelection campain. That's all on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He shows contempt for the rule of law; contempt of Congress, contempt of judges, and contempt of the Constitution. Is that even a thing? Trump might be the reason we have to make Contempt of Constitution a thing.

Oh -- not to mention: Contempt of experience. Contempt of competence. Contempt of planning ahead of orderly change of policy. Contempt of diplomacy.

He is unfit for office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

But, as Nancy says, "It's not political." Nah. Not at all.
And, they are being "prayerful." Yep. Praying that this finally takes him down.

I think it is praying that he doesn't get to finish selling the US to Russia for another hotel and that the GOP stops standing by while he tries to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails them.

Case in point - Trump rally tonight...

President Trump: "Little Shifty Schiff. He's got the little 10-inch neck. 'What size shirts do you need, Adam?' 'I wear a size nine.' Nine. He will not make the LSU football team, that I can tell you."

For God’s sake, this is our President?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails themp.

Prediction: These people you are calling “deeply stupid” will not take kindly to this effort to overturn their votes in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails themp.

Prediction: These people you are calling “deeply stupid” will not take kindly to this effort to overturn their votes in 2016.

Enough. It was “their votes” that got us into this mess and only a CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS will get us out, whether it be impeachment or the next election. Unless the Republicans cheat successfully. Again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails themp.

Prediction: These people you are calling “deeply stupid” will not take kindly to this effort to overturn their votes in 2016.

You completely missed the point. This is not about your ego or mine. No one is trying to ‘overturn your vote’. We are trying to open your eyes to the fact that that Donald Trump is, at best, deeply compromised and, more realistically, a traitor to our country. Even under the best scenario, he is horrifically incompetent. This is so blindingly obvious to at least half of the country that it is impossible for us not to see you as either willfully ignorant or complicit in this behavior. This is a five alarm fire and you are deliberately letting our country burn to the ground in order to salvage your ego and a cheap lying conman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Enough. It was “their votes” that got us into this mess and only a CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS will get us out, whether it be impeachment or the next election. Unless the Republicans cheat successfully. Again.

You know, when your side loses an election, it’s not necessarily due to cheating by the other side. Sometimes the voters prefer somebody you don’t like.

Here is some free advice for your side: stop calling average Americans ignorant, gullible, or whatever other insults you can come up with. We don’t vote for people who offer us nothing but contempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No surprise here. Dems are changing the language they are using based on what is polling best in battleground states.....



Rachael Bade
@rachaelmbade
NUGGET: The Dem decision 2 retire “quid pro quo” & embrace “bribery” followed a DCCC study showing the word resonates more in battlegrounds

It’s also clearly stated in the Constitution as grounds 4 removing POTUS. Could we see it in impeachment articles?

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1195166773450092545

Good. The country is deeply stupid. They need to spell it out.

Exactly. I had no idea how incredibly ignorant and gullible so many people in our country are. Now we know. These people will never understand the concept of quid pro quo; they’ll just think it’s an effete way for ‘the libs’ to try to get over on them. Bribery is clearly enunciated as an impeachable offense in the Constitution. Now people need to understand that what Trump did was bribery. But it’s going to take a lot to overcome the obfuscation of the Republican Party. They depend on the ignorance of their constituents, and it rarely fails themp.

Prediction: These people you are calling “deeply stupid” will not take kindly to this effort to overturn their votes in 2016.

You completely missed the point. This is not about your ego or mine. No one is trying to ‘overturn your vote’. We are trying to open your eyes to the fact that that Donald Trump is, at best, deeply compromised and, more realistically, a traitor to our country. Even under the best scenario, he is horrifically incompetent. This is so blindingly obvious to at least half of the country that it is impossible for us not to see you as either willfully ignorant or complicit in this behavior. This is a five alarm fire and you are deliberately letting our country burn to the ground in order to salvage your ego and a cheap lying conman.

Oh please. If a horrifically incompetent president represented a problem, we would never have made it through four years of Jimmy Carter. I am guessing we will survive through November 2020, less than a year from now.