The official Impeachment thread.

Jul 2019
The first question that comes to mind is whether he is using the same definition of transcript as he used when he issued the "edited" version of the first call?
right, and how could a 2nd "transcript" be more perfect than the first perfect call "transcript"?
Dec 2012
Abusing one's position to demand quid pro quo on an investigation into your political rival's son doesn't "rise to the level of corruption" in your opinion???

What you just said is mind-boggling in how absolutely stupid it is.
If a congress person has a phone call demanding quid pro quo for monetary gain in exchange for political favors, you want to ignore that because you think it all boils down to what people "think" about the phone call????

Some of the crap that Republicans say trying to defend an abandoning of the impeachment proceedings is absurd beyond reason! It demonstrates a refusal to acknowledge objective evidence which has long been accepted and simply pretend the rules don't apply to Trump.

Let's take another scenario...
Suppose all you have on Biden turns out to be what people "think" about "phone calls".
Would you then also insist that we cannot prosecute or incriminate Biden???
We both know that if you had phone call evidence on Biden, you would be trumpeting and using it.

You repeatedly say that but you ignore the facts.
LOOK AT MY SIGNATURE. That was testimony from somebody who donated a LARGE sum of money to Trump's campaign.

All you have regarding Biden is assumptions! How can you not recognize the extreme hypocrisy of your position!
Asking for a favor "without quid pro quo" does not rise to the level of impeachment. So far nothing indicating a quid pro quo has been established. Republicans asking for equal accesses is absurd? Not giving Republicans equal access is absurd! Isn't what people think (presumption) what the secondhand whistle blower and others are putting forth? Biden's own words concerning the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, who supposedly was not investigating the gas co., should raise questions as to why Biden would be so adamant about an investigation that was not proceeding. All you have are assumption based on presumptions.
Dec 2012
No, impeachment is based solely on whatever the Senate might choose to issue a guilty vote on. High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined. They could be anything.
Yes, the misdemeanor section is open for interpretation. As it stands, the Senate will not remove Trump on the highly ambiguous evidence.
Dec 2015
OH that's so precious! The insanity defense---you gotta love that. Can't you just visualize all the little defenders scurrying around coming up with......Donny lacks the intent required to perform a criminal act because the Donny either does not know that the act is wrong or cannot control his actions even when the Donny understood that the act is wrong.
OR....Donny didn't know that the "ACT" was wrong.
OR...Donny had no control over his actions.
OR....Donny had a "momentary" break down....due to the pressure of his job.
OR....Donny was told by his personal attorney that there was nothing wrong with bribery because Donny is the president and everything is LEGAL if you are the president.
OR....Donny was just kidding.
  • Like
Reactions: Biff
Dec 2012
Not really the way it is described in the Constitution.

Actually, it is appearing that Trump and his friends has a complex Guiliani coordinated alternative state department.

If you are arguing that Trump was globally interested in "corruption" what is the evidence that he has been pursuing corruption around the world (or even just in Ukraine) that is unrelated to Biden? Or, are you arguing that the only corruption in the entire world that should be a concern of the US is related to Biden in Ukraine?
Wasn't Trump's phone call primarily about corruption in the Ukraine?