much facts. so wow
why do you keep dodging simple questions? you're just telling me to accept your "very" specific narrative without argument.

let's just drop this. you can't answer the question and you're just gonna keep bashing me because you can't.

Were you dropped from very great height ?

The precedent set by the gop was to find an act they didn't like, a blowjob, then investigate and impeach on crimes during investigation not the crime that started the investigation.

Whether u think Ukraine and the evidence presented for the case is compelling in a vacuum it's still far more evidence than the gop presented to start going after him. All they had was an allegation of a blowjob. Ukraine is a real thing, even if u don't think its worthy of removal. It's an allegation of an actual real unprompted crime. Not ancillary crimes committed during investigation.

U said they're not following precedent. In the solidness of facts they are, and they're exceeding precedent with real charges.

Then again you're already convinced Clinton's perjury is worse than the trump case. So what's the difference to a biased person incapable of thinking this through?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 23 2020 05:20pm

i've not stated that one was "worse" than any other... again, i've said "impeachment" is political. not that Trump's impeachment is political.

i am stating that the Clinton investigation gave ground to his impeachment.
the opposite has happened here and impeachment is trying to give ground to investigation.
how is this not contradictory to previous precedent?

although the House has the power to "impeach" based on anything or nothing...
-can they now impeach, hold the impeachment articles for a 3-year term before handing to the Senate? since the precedent of handing it over quickly has been broken.
-can they start an investigation "before" the Senate looks through the impeachment articles? (through the Senate, but at request of House). "the"(not this) argument has been about seeing witnesses before these articles have even been discussed yet in the Senate.
they are asking to start another investigation before even discussing and/or cross-examining the current articles.

edit: i'm going to add that you "only" give credence to the "perjury" charge for Clinton. this makes sense since this is an "actual" crime.
he was also acquitted

noted

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 23 2020 06:03pm

First point, I'm talking months ago when Republicans were saying that Democrats didn't have enough public support for impeachment. That was false, as the majority of Americans supported it. I'm aware of the difference of impeachment vs removal/acquittal.

Your point about AOC completely misses the entire point, perhaps intentionally. Would Republicans really be okay with a future Democratic president withholding federal aid money to investigate a political rival?

Third, I am completely fine with the Hunter Biden for Bolton trade, or what have you. Let's get it all in the open. I'm about transparency for the American people, politics be damned.

Fourth, presidents are replaceable, but precedents are a lot harder to turn back. If Obama pulled this same shit, I'd support removal. The power of the chief executive is far too great. We can't afford to grant them this additional political power to investigate domestic political foes by tinkering with foreign aid or relations.

Trump is asking Ukraine if they will investigate Burizma, a Ukraine based company, and the links of that to the Biden's.
Seems pretty legitimate to me. Company with past links of corruption. VP son racking in $80k a month. Definitely a conflict of interests, having a VP's son working in a foreign company which he has zero experience in.

Also, the withholding of federal aid.
He had an entirely legitimate reason to not directly send federal aid to a country that had previously scammed American tax payer dollars. Sounds pretty damn smart to contemplate sending aid to a country after the previous leader went AWOL with massive amounts of American cash.

That's my opinion. The talk about precedents is a joke.
The Democratic Congress has been setting terrible precedents for this entire presidency.

There definitely hasn't been the support for impeachment.
If by support, you mean, before anybody had read any information or heard any of the details?

Anybody who watched the trials knows that was a wet noodle for evidence.

The Democrats bragged that there would be bipartisan support.
The only bipartisan support was a small amount of Democrats in Congress opposing impeachment. Lol.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 23 2020 07:54pm

A majority of Americans supported removing Trump from office before any evidence had even become public. It largely falls into the standard partisan split of the Trump era: 50-55% against him, 42-47% on his side.




How often do you think relevant presidential candidates will have shady business dealings in foreign countries so that there even is something, anything to investigate to begin with?



Cant argue with that. But as I said, I'm not sure if the Dems would agree to this deal if the GOP offered it.



The real problem is that the administration has too much leeway on foreign policy. That this much unchecked power would eventually be abused was only a matter of time if you ask me.








I think it's the other way round: the misconduct the Dems are accusing Trump of is a weak noodle, but the evidence for this weak-noodle-transgression is actually pretty compelling.

>calls someone else dim
>needs state subsidy and mommie in law for groceries

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220559375938609152



Haven't been following the trial at all, but a great speech. Unfortunately, right and truth don't matter in this country. Trump will be acquitted even though he's clearly guilty, and he'll probably be re-elected.

I really dislike Adam Schiff but that was one hell of a speech.