Post exchange where you say you're not against Biden being investigated. Me supplying the January date when Giuliani meets with the prosecutor for the first time saying maybe he didn't know about it previously.



Like what are you even expecting for me to say to a post like this?

I stated up front that I thought a motive for Trump was that it could help him politically. And then you just repeat that part to me.

That's me pushing the breaks?

I already said that a part of it was political gain. That doesn't mean politicians can't do things for political gain when there is also simultaneously other value in those actions as well for the country. I told you that it's a legitimate move. Which I already said.

You saying he would only do it if he could tie it to Biden. Okay, that's an opinion. It's irrelevant to the Impeachment case. That holds no impeachment value, he still has a legitimate right to pursue the investigation.

This is why the house should have gone to the courts instead of rushing to the senate. Instead of investigating thoroughly they sent it up without the proper evidence to corner GOP senators or garner large majority support from independents.

The evidence they sent to the senate boiled down to career staff angry at being out of the loop or having strong disagreements with Trump's policy. The people who spoke directly to Trump prior to this outlined his mistrust for Ukraine in general from the beginning.

This was partisan trash throughout. The democrats look simply foolish right now. The republicans look corrupt as usual but the majority of the country think most politicians are corrupt.

There's a lot of ways Trump could have handled a legitimate investigation. He could have asked the senate or house to appoint an independent investigator, or he could have worked with the DoJ to start an investigation. There are legitimate ways to conduct an investigation. Placing a hold on funds you don't have the right to place a hold on and demanding another government publicly announce an investigation is not the way you fight corruption. It's clear from Trump's actions what his motivation was, because if he was actually concerned about corruption he would have 1. Looked into it earlier and found out it was happening 2. Used his own justice department or asked another branch to investigate 3. Not relied on a foreign government to do the investigation 4. Not asked for specifically a public announcement of the foreign government's investigation.

I get it though, you really really want to find any plausible deniability.

It is an opinion that his primary motive was personal gain from damaging Biden, but not all opinions are equal. My opinion is based on the facts of the case showing a clear pattern of behavior, which is how trials are won.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 2 2020 12:07am

Not guilty you heard

Sounds like eluding the true nature of what Trump did is the real partisanship problem here.

Process was predetermined. Impeachment leads to Senate, courts leads to SCOTUS. Both politically motivated partisan bodies.

It is still important to go through the motions. Now Dems can at least run on the cover up.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 2 2020 07:22am

A partisan determination in SCOTUS would help Dems more than the known outcome from the senate imo. Maybe not in 2020 but down the road. I'm not sure SCOTUS wouldn't have sided with the inquiry though.

It would be 5-4 down partisan lines. We have a very activist court as well right now.

Will be 6-3 when all over. RBG not gonna be on much longer. She is trying to wait out Trump, but she has sacrificed enough for America already, and America doesn't seem to want to be better.

We have young people supporting authoritarianism. This hurts my heart.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 2 2020 07:56am

0. No solid evidence yet of funds being withheld solely for this reason. I can only speak to the evidence we can see. We still have no evidence that aid was being withheld solely for a Burizma investigation.

1. What evidence do you have of this? There is none to show Trump knew about this prior to January that I've seen, considering that sounds like the first time Giuliani was made aware was after speaking with the Ukraine prosecutor.

2. It doesn't matter if your preferred route is a formal investigation with the DOJ, and for arguments sake, if it is possibly the best method. Is having a foreign government investigate their own company illegal? No.

3. See above.

4. Really irrelevant since there is legitimacy in having the investigation based on the facts at hand. A case of mixed motives. There is public benefit in the investigation.

Impeachment summarized. Dems trying to impeach over a foreign policy disagreement.

That's fine to have that opinion or disagree, I never said that wasn't a primary motive for the investigation. In fact I've said that I agree with you that it likely was a primary motive for the investigation. Trump is likely looking for retaliation in regards to being the target of false smear campaigns since 2016. Mixed motives are still present and the investigation is still legitimate. We still have no evidence that aid was being withheld solely for a Burizma investigation.



"The second charge against Trump is obstruction of Congress, because he did not comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and witnesses to testify. There is no question that Trump did not comply, but there is legitimate debate about whether he constitutionally had to comply, since by nature the impeachment process is a political one. High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the Constitution or in law. The term basically means whatever a majority of the House says it means, and then whatever two-thirds of the Senate agree it means.

As a past chairman of a major House committee who had the responsibility to issue subpoenas, I believe this charge to be the more serious but also problematic. It does not in my mind rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. If it did, every president I served with (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump), would theoretically be guilty. All presidents resist congressional subpoenas for documents and witnesses. When this occurs, negotiations usually result in mutually agreeable compliance. In rare cases, the House brings a contempt of Congress resolution to the House floor for a vote. The current article of impeachment regarding failure to comply with a House subpoena is unique in congressional history."

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 2 2020 08:29am

I'm not convinced SCOTUS is a sure thing on this matter. Just my opinion though.

I'd argue learned helplessness at this point with politics. No matter how you vote it seems corruption is the rule.

No one on the campaign trail is talking about limiting executive power sadly. Hell they all have plans for their day 1 EOs already.