I think the only new info yesterday was the cell phone call with trump that was overheard. It’s not on a secure line. A foreign government has a recording of it. Warren should ask foreign governments to provide a copy to the media. I’m sure they will be rewarded well after she will the election. Afterward, Warren should hold aids to a foreign government dependent on the aid for their security in exchange for personal benefits while telling her supporters it’s about corruption. Make sure all of this go through the unofficial channel, with her lawyer leading the push. And if any WB report it, attack them relentlessly and demand their name to be released. If a republican house starts impeachment hearings, get Avenatti as counsel.
Ya'll angrily posting whatever media you consume that supports what they have manipulated you to think is hilarious.
Are there any democratic posters that don't like the line that is being taken or is everybody in agreement that this impeachment is the way to go before the election? I would imagine that even though some want Trump impeached that this line is risky. I am under the impression that regardless of how this plays out, the voters will ultimately decide on another 4 years.
Letting corruption slide isn’t an option. Your GOP impeached over lying about an extramarital affair.... the game is the game.
Trump produced a "There there" with the transcript - and the Ukraine expert that was on the call who testifies next week will strengthen the case. DD
It's too bad Mueller told his story in such a bone dry snooze inducing fashion. He didn't realize what Republican party had become and gave them credit for being good faith actors. They are not. This is basically the next phase of the ongoing subjugation of the American people to a bunch of sleazy, stupid Russian thugs by way of an unspeakably corrupt buffoon and his army of aging racists. And it's being told, clear as day, by real patriots and people who actually do want to MAGA, not sell hats while literally selling out the entire American experiment. That is what Mueller investigated and exposed but wasn't able to tell though that story is now being told in the Stone trial. This is what is happening today, through every tweet, corrupt scandal, @Os Trigonum Facebook "like and share if you agree" post... This is what is at stake. Truth itself is part of the reward, regardless of the outcome.
They have to impeach, they took an oath to the constitution, and Trump has abused his power, and undermined national security - they have no choice but to Impeach. DD
Does anyone watch more than a few minutes of the live feed anyway? The live feed is like buying wholesale. You can go directly to the factory if you're buying in bulk, but most people are relying on retailers like FoxNews and CNN to buy the wholesale and package it for the individual consumer at retail. Not necessarily. This impeachment couldn't happen before 2018 because the minority party didn't control the House. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and keeps the House, Republicans will have a very hard time getting revenge. Likewise if Trump wins again, Democrats will be too crushed to put up any fight after that.
I take it that you concede that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the bidens. That is basically fact, right? So you dispute the intent/purpose? There are two viable possibilities: (i) to help his political campaign, or (ii) to investigate "corruption". I assume you choose to believe the latter. Objectively weigh all the evidence and which possibility does the evidence support? The overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicates it was political. If you're saying that there is no email or contemporaneous writing or video, or something like that which specifically and unequivocally states that Trump's intent was to help his political campaign, that is factually true. But that would also be a moronic and false "requirement". Intent is almost never proven by a proverbial "smoking gun" document. In the overwhelming majority of cases at the courthouse for example, intent (when it is relevant to a case) is proven by the totality of evidence, which is weighed by a jury or judge to determine intent. Here, all available evidence indicates the intent was political advantage. What evidence exists that indicates that Trump's purpose was not political in motivation, but rather to investigate corruption? Trump's tweets? Assertions by politicans? I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that Trumps purpose was anything other than political advantage.
These threads are tedious enough. I wouldn't recommend engaging this obviously bad-faith "new" (sic) poster who is "not a Trumper" (TM, sic). Cheers. Good luck, everyone, with yer talking points and if you enjoy the saddest display. So happy I'm very busy with work right now. LOL.
Agreed. These hearings are setting a horrible precedent. Now, every time a POTUS tries to bribe another country into helping with his/her reelection campaign, we'll have to go through this all over again.
Lively discussion on both sides of the aisle. I love this. I admittedly don't like Donald Trump, but let me be clear: no President should EVER be impeached for low approval or animosity from a chunk of the population. I'm a registered Democrat but I would have absolutely no qualms from an "American democracy" standpoint if Trump were removed and Mike Pence became president, even if he was re-elected in 2020. I think Pence has views that are completely opposite of my own in several regards. However, if the American public duly re-elected him, that is fair and I think he has the temperament that a sitting President should hold (unlike Trump). Down to business. I'm a trial attorney and I try to view these hearings with an objective mind because you cannot be a successful lawyer if you can't adopt both sides of an issue. In my opinion, based on the testimony we've heard thus far things look very troubling for Trump. I think there's a prima fascia case that Trump directed funds from the NSC to be withheld in exchange for a political gain to himself alone. This is right on point with the fears written by the Founding Fathers as reflected in the impeachable offenses under Article 4 of the Constitution. The counter-argument is that if Trump is merely rooting out corruption, what's the problem? Shouldn't the sitting President get to the bottom of shady dealings regarding the Bidens before he allocates more aid to Ukraine? The problem with this counter-argument is that the investigation of the Bidens has absolutely nothing to do with national security or confronting Russian aggression. These funds were earmarked for a specific purpose and the fact (if proven) that Trump directed these funds to be withheld on an unrelated investigation from years ago that just so happens to target the main challenger in the upcoming 2020 election...boy howdy, that's awfully damning to me. I'm eager to hear more testimony before making a conclusion on whether Trump should be removed from office, but the testimony we've heard thus far certainly stoked a flame.
