Question for Republicans....if shaking down a foreign country isn't impeachable, exactly what (besides lying about oral sex) would be impeachable? I ask because both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers specifically note this exact action is impeachable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

So far no witness adds any facts remotely worthy of impeachment.

Oh, yeah, Trump's hair is orange, and he's fat! Let's impeach him.

1) Illegally asking a foreign country for personal aid in a federal election.
2) Illegally withholding congressionally appropriate funds from a foriegn state that happens to be vulnerable at the hands of an adversary.
3) Covering up said actions by illegally placing proof of the shakedown on an NSA server.
4) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore valid complaints files by White House Staff.
5) Covering up said action by having the DOJ ignore a valid Whistleblower complaint.
6) Covering up said action by illegally withholding binding subpoenaed materials.
7) Covering up said action by illegally invoking an non-existent privilege.

Or, for a more concrete example, if Biden is the president in 2020 or 2024, would it be no biggie if he did what Trump has admitted to have done?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

So far no witness adds any facts remotely worthy of impeachment.

Oh, yeah, Trump's hair is orange, and he's fat! Let's impeach him.

Just abuse of office. No biggie, when Trump does it.

If Obama had done what these witnesses have said, would that also be no biggie?

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

So far no witness adds any facts remotely worthy of impeachment.

Oh, yeah, Trump's hair is orange, and he's fat! Let's impeach him.

And, Pelosi said impeachment needs to be bipartisan. She lied.

Well, you impeach the treasonous slime ball you’ve got. You don’t wait for the Republican base to elect an honest-to-God Pol Pot.

Trump and the deplorable R's are not shifting their defense to

"yes he did do it, yes there was a quid pro quo, yes Trump held up the Congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine unless they find dirt on Biden, yes the call WAS a problem, yes becasue Trump is a mobster and discussed a favor on that call we now have to hide the FULL transcript on a secure NSC server cuz it's bad, very bad, yes, Trump did abuse the office, and yes Trump did obstruct justice.. But...

So what? Get over it! Presidents can do whatever they want!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

No, and the interpretation isn't even disputed by the talking heads.

"Abuse of power is not a crime," said Whitaker.

Except Whitaker is wrong. Nixon was impeached for abuse of office.

Nixon was never quite impeached.

Tim Morrison confirms the story others have told. He simply didn't make a legal judgement of right vs. wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

No, and the interpretation isn't even disputed by the talking heads.

"Abuse of power is not a crime," said Whitaker.

Except Whitaker is wrong. Nixon was impeached for abuse of office.

Whitaker, the toilet salesman!

Anonymous wrote:So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

No, and the interpretation isn't even disputed by the talking heads.

"Abuse of power is not a crime," said Whitaker.

Except Whitaker is wrong. Nixon was impeached for abuse of office.

So far no facts are disputed by any witnesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CBS News has learned NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."

Yes. He said he wasn't concerned about anything illegal during the call but he thought the call was problematic and twice reached out to NSC lawyers because he thought Trump's foreign policy towards Ukraine was problematic.

He certainly sounds like a Bolton aide.

How can anyone make an informed decision without the full transcript, not redacted, and/or hearing the audio. It's been confirmed that the audio of the conversation was moved to the secure server only *after* concerns were raised to WH counsel. Coupled with the fact that the transcripts that they have seen are missing phrases, it's highly suspicious.

Certainly, even the transcript that was released has raised concerns among Senate Rs.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/468246-senate-gop-shifts-tone-on-impeachment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ZERO Republicans voted for this resolution. ZERO.

And, Pelosi said impeachment needs to be bipartisan. She lied.
We need to get her out of the speaker position and reinstate a Republican.

How bi-partisan was impeachment for a blowjob?

That is what this is all about?

The vote was on the rules for the debate. It is telling that not one Republican voted for the inquiry to move forward since there were Republicans in the secret inquiry. None of those Republicans, who heard the testimony, voted for this. ZERO.

As of the talking point, you idiots are pressing, this vote on the rule isn't "the vote Republicans wanted" and you know it.

God bless America.

color me surprised.. NOT.. that support for Trump is partisan.

Anonymous wrote:CBS News has learned NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."

Yes. He said he wasn't concerned about anything illegal during the call but he thought the call was problematic and twice reached out to NSC lawyers because he thought Trump's foreign policy towards Ukraine was problematic.

He certainly sounds like a Bolton aide.