Why no Trump impeachment thread on Paw-Litics???

[detltu]

There is a difference between trying to do a good job to win approval and trying to dig up dirt or stir controversy over a political rival. In one case, the nation’s interest is the primary beneficiary of your activity and you hope to also benefit.

This case is even further different because we were putting Ukraine (and therefore our own interest) at risk for a personal interest.

There is a difference, but not as distinct as you make it. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Just because one party deems something to be in the nations interest does not make it so. This is the heart of the Biden issue. Was it just happenstance that Biden was asking for the firing of the person who would have been in charge of the investigation of Burisma? Was the Obama administration putting it's own interests in front of the nations? Just because it benefits Trump does not make it an invalid request. Similarly just because it benefited Biden does not make it a scandal.

To say that it is all debunked is wishful thinking though.

[Guisslapp]

There is a difference, but not as distinct as you make it. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Just because one party deems something to be in the nations interest does not make it so. This is the heart of the Biden issue. Was it just happenstance that Biden was asking for the firing of the person who would have been in charge of the investigation of Burisma? Was the Obama administration putting it's own interests in front of the nations? Just because it benefits Trump does not make it an invalid request. Similarly just because it benefited Biden does not make it a scandal.

To say that it is all debunked is wishful thinking though.

1. What other issue of corruption has Trump held up aid for? There really isn’t any pattern of concern here to lend credibility to the notion that Trump was acting for the nation’s interest in the particular instance.

2. Why did Rudy say in his letter to Z that he was working as Trump’s personal attorney and not on behalf of the US government or White House if this was being worked for the nation’s interest.

3. Why is Trump taking the opposite side of our intelligence and foreign policy experts? They were saying that the actions he was taking were against our national security interests - including our effort to support the promotion of the rule of law in Ukraine, including NOT doing political investigations.

4. The Burisma conspiracy theory makes no sense. The guy that Biden took credit for getting fired was not pursuing Burisma and that is why the IMF, UK and US wanted the guy fired - he was corrupt and that is generally accepted by our experts.

5. Is it remotely believable that it is a COINCIDENCE that the two corrupt things that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate would also help him take down his political opponents and bolster his theory that he was the victim of the 2016 election meddling?


That is the problem. All of this evidence points one direction.

If Trump had exculpatory evidence why wouldn’t he produce it? Why did his DOJ try to prevent Congress from getting the whistleblower complaint as required under the law? Why did they move this call record to a restricted server? Why the unprecedented complete refusal to turn over documents and block all witnesses?

[FriscoDog]

They did worse. They used it to turn the Government against a political opponent. And we are still seeing the effects of it to this day.

He asked in a very public way that can easily be construed as a joke. His son was attempting to gain access to information (very similar to the Clinton campaign actually paying for dirt) but at some point realized he was being set up. Had he actually recieved the information I guess it would have been ok as long as he didn't disseminate it right?
I would agree that it was all improper. It's arguable whether he benefited (certainly didn't in the long run). There is also nothing saying Russia obliged with his request. You are reaching on that one.

And now they have cheapened and weaponized the impeachment process to the point that if there is another Dem POTUS and GOP house, they can impeach him for anything. Just like when Harry Reid used the nuclear option for the first time against Republicans.. democrats cried when it was turned around and used against them.

[FriscoDog]

All this is and has been is a tax payer funded marketing scheme for the democratic party, but the majority of the public is not buying it anymore. Bottom line, I will vote for Trump this year and Trump will be re-elected. GOP will win back house and keep Senate. This is all that matters.

[Guisslapp]

All this is and has been is a tax payer funded marketing scheme for the democratic party, but the majority of the public is not buying it anymore. Bottom line, I will vote for Trump this year and Trump will be re-elected. GOP will win back house and keep Senate. This is all that matters.

Sounds like you haven’t been watching the trial.

[DONW]

Quote of the day by Lindsey Graham: "We've already heard this 4 times today, why do we need to hear it again."

[Guisslapp]

Quote of the day by Lindsey Graham: "We've already heard this 4 times today, why do we need to hear it again."

Or this Lindsay Graham quote of the day:

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury,"

[Guisslapp]

The presentation today on Obstruction of Congress was very well done. Clearly carried their burden.

[DONW]

The presentation today on Obstruction of Congress was very well done. Clearly carried their burden.

Keep telling yourself that. You and CNN and MSNBC and your left wing lunatic buddies are the only ones that believe it. I got another sign for my yard today: KEEP AMERICA GREAT

[Guisslapp]

Keep telling yourself that. You and CNN and MSNBC and your left wing lunatic buddies are the only ones that believe it. I got another sign for my yard today: KEEP AMERICA GREAT

It is your right to advertise that you aren’t very thoughtful.

[FriscoDog]

Sounds like you haven’t been watching the trial.

No I work for a living.

[FriscoDog]

The United States of America did not impeach President Trump. It wasn't Congress. It was the Democrat Party, for pure political purposes. No bi-partisan support at all for this impeachment. Facts

[Guisslapp]

No I work for a living.

Thanks for swinging by to adamantly express your ignorant opinion then.

[Guisslapp]

The United States of America did not impeach President Trump. It wasn't Congress. It was the Democrat Party, for pure political purposes. No bi-partisan support at all for this impeachment. Facts

The weakness of the Republican defense in the House was just exposed as the pile of nothingness as it always was. The Dems has the support of the independents.

[arkansasbob]

And obviously his argument about it being a “wafer thin” case was made BEFORE the trial - you know, the place where the case is actually made. As we saw yesterday, the case is anything but “wafer thin.”