So is the democratic impeachment fully shifted over to the narrative of "Quid pro quo of white house meeting in exchange for investigations", or are they still barking up the 'foreign aid' or even 'mueller / russia / obstruction' trees?
I'm having a hard time following this, the media coverage has given me whiplash

There's no reason to get locked into any narrative. So far we see Trump sought to leverage America's relationship with Ukraine to pursue his own personal political aims, and he used his personal attorney as the point man.

The happier part of the story are the patriotic civil servants who tried to sound the alarm on this behavior. When the history is written on this, those people will be on the right side.

I can think of a reason: When they run with a half dozen false narratives in a row that each get disproven before turning onto a final message that's so unremarkable and underwhelming that they need to conflate it with the more salacious, false narratives, it shows a disingenuous push for impeachment. Especially when the final message reeks of hypocrisy because Barack "More flexibility after my election" Obama leveraged his foreign policy for partisan purposes in far more direct ways.

Did Barack Obama ever seek aid of other foreign countries to investigate Mitt Romney pre-2012?

This post was edited by Boogeymen on Oct 29 2019 09:26am

Hot take.

it's pretty sad that even people like R - Liz Cheney are on the right side of history here... inb4 Trump tweetstorm about liz cheney being a never trumper



https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/29/donald-trump-alexander-vindman-testimony-061018

This post was edited by Boogeymen on Oct 29 2019 09:41am

draft dodger attacking true patriots, and the cult is cheering for him. why do they hate america so much?

is a coherent and direct line of accusations required for impeachment?

if not, and i dont believe there is any such requirement, why does it matter?

Required? In what sense. Impeachment isn't a strictly legal, black and white function of government. Theres no impartial judge. Its a partisan political decision made by the whims and tyranny of the masses and their representatives. And as with all political controversies, messaging matters. An incoherent accusation clouded by false narratives and tangents is a mangled political mess. It doesn't help the democrats case when even astute political observers have trouble tracking their accusations and the laymen still think this is about Russia. Is it required? They can vote anyway, it won't accomplish anything but harming them next election.



Did Barack Obama warp his foreign policy specifically to undermine Mitt Romney ahead of the election and then make a big scripted moment about it in the debates? Yes, the 1980s called. And that latitude given to Russia had disastrous consequences and was pivotal in Putin's decisions in Ukraine, Syria and the 2016 election.

To what extent does it need to be a specific proactive quid pro quo to be considered morally equivalent? We at least know Obama was communicating directly to the Russians that he was willing to be soft on them for the election's sake, thanks to that fateful hot mic.

It isnt hard to follow,

like at all.

its been proven Russia fuxt with 2016 election - Faggot republicans saying its a hoax.
The faggot orange man constantly abuses his position for personal gain, which is against the law.
Faggot orange man is too fucking stupid so he decided to admit he is holding shit for a favour.

orange man useless fucking faggot
republicans following his useless ass should all be in prison as well.

Defy subpeona???? Prison. Half of GOP in prison please



see

easy.