The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Unregistered]

Which is what, exactly? That the Dems want the Senate trial to damage Trump's re-election chances? Hardly a bombshell. You must be the only numbskull on here that doesn't already realize that.

Not trying to kill the messenger, but you might want to consider a more balanced diet of news sources (Extreme Right bias, Mixed rating on factual reporting):
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-blaze/

Wait, what? So this impeachment isn’t really about a quid pro quo with Ukraine? Wow, I feel so lied to! Why would Schitz lie to us? I don’t understand, he said Trump was the liar. So everything the Republicans have been saying about this only being referendum of the 2016 election and a political hit job is really true. I’m so disappointed. I put so much faith into Schitz. I thought he would do the right thing. Boy was I wrong. You’re absolutely right, I am a numbskull for buying in to the years of liberal talking points. I really thought the Dems would rise up above the fray and do the right thing. What a letdown!!! So all that Russia stuff was just a lie and a ploy to destroy a guys re-election. All this righteous talk about “right matters” and “Truth means something” was all just bullshít! I’m really broken up over this. Now I know the Democrats are untrustworthy and politically motivated, I think I’m gonna vote for Trump. TRUMP 2020, bitches!!!!!!

[Unregistered]

Wait, what? So this impeachment isn’t really about a quid pro quo with Ukraine? Wow, I feel so lied to! Why would Schitz lie to us? I don’t understand, he said Trump was the liar. So everything the Republicans have been saying about this only being referendum of the 2016 election and a political hit job is really true. I’m so disappointed. I put so much faith into Schitz. I thought he would do the right thing. Boy was I wrong. You’re absolutely right, I am a numbskull for buying in to the years of liberal talking points. I really thought the Dems would rise up above the fray and do the right thing. What a letdown!!! So all that Russia stuff was just a lie and a ploy to destroy a guys re-election. All this righteous talk about “right matters” and “Truth means something” was all just bullshít! I’m really broken up over this. Now I know the Democrats are untrustworthy and politically motivated, I think I’m gonna vote for Trump. TRUMP 2020, bitches!!!!!!

The Dems did their constitutional duty by putting forth the articles of impeachment and proving their case. An impartial jury would have convicted on the evidence presented. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial jury. Right doesn't matter to Senate republicans. The Truth doesn't matter to them either. They will fail to do their constitutional duty, and history will not be kind.

Repubs have said all along why not wait for the election. Dems know they will not get a conviction in the Senate, so the strategy is obviously to get as many facts out as possible before November. Maybe some of those brainwashed Trumpers will wake up.

[Unregistered]

Repubs have said all along why not wait for the election. Dems know they will not get a conviction in the Senate, so the strategy is obviously to get as many facts out as possible before November. Maybe some of those brainwashed Trumpers will wake up.

The Dem strategy seems to be working. 53% disapproval rating:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/...ald-trump.aspx

[Unregistered]

The Dems did their constitutional duty by putting forth the articles of impeachment and proving their case. An impartial jury would have convicted on the evidence presented. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial jury. Right doesn't matter to Senate republicans. The Truth doesn't matter to them either. They will fail to do their constitutional duty, and history will not be kind.

Repubs have said all along why not wait for the election. Dems know they will not get a conviction in the Senate, so the strategy is obviously to get as many facts out as possible before November. Maybe some of those brainwashed Trumpers will wake up.

Sorry, I thought you said "facts". I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure opinions, hearsay, assumptions, presumptions, and conjecture would never hold up in any court. Including the one with your impartial jury. Not one witness called by the Dems was able to corroborate Schitz's accusations. Not even the star witness, Ambassador Sondland, who was in the room during the call. That's a big problem for you guys. Moreover, Zelinsky has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with his conversations with Trump. More problems for you. Right does matter when its right. Arguing that somebody must have felt something is not proving your case.

Lofgren, one of the House Managers, said in her interview yesterday that they decided to not pursue witnesses in the courts for two reasons...the interest of time and they felt they had a sufficient amount of evidence to prove their case. Well, we now can see that wasn't true. Deep down you know the Dems haven't proved their case. If you did, you wouldn't be crying about more witnesses, would you? Nope. The Dems rushed the whole thing and now they're paying the price for it. Don't blame the Senate for House ineptness. I got news for you, impeaching the POTUS because you don't like him is not doing your "constitutional duty". You are right, history will not be kind. The history books will show that only Democrats voted for impeachment without a single Republican vote. That's something that you can't erase. Partisan hatred will stain the legacy of the Democrats.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, I thought you said "facts". I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure opinions, hearsay, assumptions, presumptions, and conjecture would never hold up in any court. Including the one with your impartial jury. Not one witness called by the Dems was able to corroborate Schitz's accusations. Not even the star witness, Ambassador Sondland, who was in the room during the call. That's a big problem for you guys. Moreover, Zelinsky has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with his conversations with Trump. More problems for you. Right does matter when its right. Arguing that somebody must have felt something is not proving your case.

Lofgren, one of the House Managers, said in her interview yesterday that they decided to not pursue witnesses in the courts for two reasons...the interest of time and they felt they had a sufficient amount of evidence to prove their case. Well, we now can see that wasn't true. Deep down you know the Dems haven't proved their case. If you did, you wouldn't be crying about more witnesses, would you? Nope. The Dems rushed the whole thing and now they're paying the price for it. Don't blame the Senate for House ineptness. I got news for you, impeaching the POTUS because you don't like him is not doing your "constitutional duty". You are right, history will not be kind. The history books will show that only Democrats voted for impeachment without a single Republican vote. That's something that you can't erase. Partisan hatred will stain the legacy of the Democrats.

You watched all this on Fox News where they muted the sound and scrolled their own "interpretations", didn't you? The Dems proved their case. Since Fox News didn't tell you I will: Trump's defense teams didn't dispute any of the facts of the case presented by the House managers. That should tell you something.

Every prosecutor always wants more evidence, regardless of how strong the case already is. First-hand witnesses would be nice, but Trump is blocking them. Why?

BTW, opinions and presumptions convict people every day in America's court system. When there's an impartial jury, that is. With a real jury Trump would be convicted in a New York second.

[Unregistered]

You watched all this on Fox News where they muted the sound and scrolled their own "interpretations", didn't you? The Dems proved their case. Since Fox News didn't tell you I will: Trump's defense teams didn't dispute any of the facts of the case presented by the House managers. That should tell you something.

Every prosecutor always wants more evidence, regardless of how strong the case already is. First-hand witnesses would be nice, but Trump is blocking them. Why?

BTW, opinions and presumptions convict people every day in America's court system. When there's an impartial jury, that is. With a real jury Trump would be convicted in a New York second.

1. How did they prove the case?

2. Blocking first-hand witnesses? Really? Hi Kettle, remember the House Impeachment Inquiry?

3. Impartial jury? Dems voted 100% to impeach. Gee, there's some impartiality for you. Maybe, just maybe the Senate is not ready to overturn 63 million votes over an opinion or presumption. Unlike our partisan hacks in the House, I thank God our Senate is better than that.

[Unregistered]

1. How did they prove the case?

2. Blocking first-hand witnesses? Really? Hi Kettle, remember the House Impeachment Inquiry?

3. Impartial jury? Dems voted 100% to impeach. Gee, there's some impartiality for you. Maybe, just maybe the Senate is not ready to overturn 63 million votes over an opinion or presumption. Unlike our partisan hacks in the House, I thank God our Senate is better than that.

Not calling the Whistle blower is not blocking a witness. Everything the whistle blower said was corroborated through other witnesses.

[Unregistered]

1. How did they prove the case?

2. Blocking first-hand witnesses? Really? Hi Kettle, remember the House Impeachment Inquiry?

3. Impartial jury? Dems voted 100% to impeach. Gee, there's some impartiality for you. Maybe, just maybe the Senate is not ready to overturn 63 million votes over an opinion or presumption. Unlike our partisan hacks in the House, I thank God our Senate is better than that.

1. You're joking, right? Nobody disputes the basic facts in the articles of impeachment. Trump withheld congressionally-approved security assistance from Ukraine, conditioning it on announcing investigations against a political rival. The call record proves it, Trump's own confession proves it, Mulvaney's public statements prove it, 17 witnesses corroborate it, and Trump's defense team didn't attempt to refute it.

2. Sorry, what first-hand witnesses relevant to the impeachment proceeding were blocked by the Democrats? I only remember that Trump barred Bolton and others from testifying. Why? If you're referring to the Bidens, Schiff, or the whistleblower, let's hear your argument on why those would be relevant.

3. The only partisanship is on the R side, where everyone is scared of being insulted by POTUS on Twitter or having their "head on a pike". Where is the moral courage?

[Unregistered]

Not calling the Whistle blower is not blocking a witness. Everything the whistle blower said was corroborated through other witnesses.

The Republicans were "blocked" from any access to the whistleblower. According to the Senate trial, there is more than circumstantial evidence the whistleblower may have been a Biden staffer. If that's the case, the Republicans should have every bit of access to both the whistleblower and Biden. Schitz is very quick, however, to call them irrelevant witnesses. Really? Really Schitz? What are you hiding? Not surprised since a new report just came out that Schitz may have help exculpatory evidence from Trump's lawyers. Everybody, including you, knows Schitz is a straight-up weasel.

[Unregistered]

The Republicans were "blocked" from any access to the whistleblower. According to the Senate trial, there is more than circumstantial evidence the whistleblower may have been a Biden staffer. If that's the case, the Republicans should have every bit of access to both the whistleblower and Biden. Schitz is very quick, however, to call them irrelevant witnesses. Really? Really Schitz? What are you hiding? Not surprised since a new report just came out that Schitz may have help exculpatory evidence from Trump's lawyers. Everybody, including you, knows Schitz is a straight-up weasel.

Imagine you're Trump's lead attorney. Let's hear your case to Chief Justice Roberts on why the whistleblower is a relevant witness, given that all his testimony has already been corroborated under oath, and his identity is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Prove you're not just trying to out him so Trump can harass, threaten, and intimidate him.

This is your chance to prove you can think critically, and aren't just a mindless right-wing minion. Go.

[Unregistered]

Imagine you're Trump's lead attorney. Let's hear your case to Chief Justice Roberts on why the whistleblower is a relevant witness, given that all his testimony has already been corroborated under oath, and his identity is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Prove you're not just trying to out him so Trump can harass, threaten, and intimidate him.

This is your chance to prove you can think critically, and aren't just a mindless right-wing minion. Go.

You're expecting way too much from a sycophant who does nothing but regurgitate right-wing talking points. It's always a stream of vague accusations and lies, never any thoughtful reasoning or analysis. He's not capable of forming a logical argument. You will not get a response on this.

[Unregistered]

1. You're joking, right? Nobody disputes the basic facts in the articles of impeachment. Trump withheld congressionally-approved security assistance from Ukraine, conditioning it on announcing investigations against a political rival. The call record proves it, Trump's own confession proves it, Mulvaney's public statements prove it, 17 witnesses corroborate it, and Trump's defense team didn't attempt to refute it.

2. Sorry, what first-hand witnesses relevant to the impeachment proceeding were blocked by the Democrats? I only remember that Trump barred Bolton and others from testifying. Why? If you're referring to the Bidens, Schiff, or the whistleblower, let's hear your argument on why those would be relevant.

3. The only partisanship is on the R side, where everyone is scared of being insulted by POTUS on Twitter or having their "head on a pike". Where is the moral courage?

1. "Nobody disputes the basic facts in the articles of impeachment"? Wow, what the hell are we having a trial for? That's one of the dumbest things you've said to date. Maybe in your circle of libtards. Were has conditioning aid against a political rival been proven. Show me. Just like Schitz, that's an opinion. Nobody has been able to corroborate that, including star witness Sondland. In just 2 hours, Trump's team blew that out of the water. Trump has withheld aid to multiple countries over corruption. "The call proves it"? Once again, your opinion. Zelinsky had no problem with the call and Aid was never discussed. "Trump's own confession"? Sondland testified under oath that Trump specifically stated he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo. You obviously did not Saturday's trial. Every single of Schitz's witnesses testified no quid pro quo and no bribery.

2. I'll ask you the same question you libtards throw in Republicans face. What are you afraid of. If you want witnesses then let's call witnesses. Everyone is fair game. I'm good with that. Schitz can't have it both ways. He can't ask for Bolton and the rest then claim he, Biden, and others are off-limits. That's ludicrous. If the whistleblower was truly apart of Biden's staff, the world needs to know. Those implications could change everything. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Schitz is afraid of.

3. "Republicans afraid of Trump"? Wow, I guess you didn't see the reaction of House Dems when Pelosi scolded them during the impeachment vote. They acted like scared kindergarteners when Pelosi gave them the look. Nobody crosses her and it's quite obvious nobody votes against her #100% Moral courage anyone????

[Unregistered]

Imagine you're Trump's lead attorney. Let's hear your case to Chief Justice Roberts on why the whistleblower is a relevant witness, given that all his testimony has already been corroborated under oath, and his identity is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. Prove you're not just trying to out him so Trump can harass, threaten, and intimidate him.

This is your chance to prove you can think critically, and aren't just a mindless right-wing minion. Go.

Ok, Mr. Critical Thinker, Since assumption, presumption, and conjecture seems to be the flavor of the month I got a couple of questions. Would you have a problem with the whistleblower being a Biden staffer during the time the VPOTUS was overseeing Ukrainian affairs? Do you think that would be relevant in an impeachment trial of this magnitude? Would you not want to know the motives and the sources of the information? Now is your chance to answer these questions honestly. Let's see if you're capable of proving you're not just another partisan hack. Let's get it all out there. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 protects the "identity" of the accuser not his/her testimony. There have been many examples of Whistelblowers testifying in secret to both sides without their identity being uncovered. Schitz is afraid of something. My guess is it's something big. It's hilarious and so hypocritical that you think this is no big deal. I promise you if Republicans impeached Obama over a whistleblower complaint, you libtards would have lost your minds. I guarantee you would not be defending the Whistleblower Act.

[Unregistered]

Ok, Mr. Critical Thinker, Since assumption, presumption, and conjecture seems to be the flavor of the month I got a couple of questions. Would you have a problem with the whistleblower being a Biden staffer during the time the VPOTUS was overseeing Ukrainian affairs? Do you think that would be relevant in an impeachment trial of this magnitude? Would you not want to know the motives and the sources of the information? Now is your chance to answer these questions honestly. Let's see if you're capable of proving you're not just another partisan hack. Let's get it all out there. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 protects the "identity" of the accuser not his/her testimony. There have been many examples of Whistelblowers testifying in secret to both sides without their identity being uncovered. Schitz is afraid of something. My guess is it's something big. It's hilarious and so hypocritical that you think this is no big deal. I promise you if Republicans impeached Obama over a whistleblower complaint, you libtards would have lost your minds. I guarantee you would not be defending the Whistleblower Act.

Your answer is full of irrelevant questions, vagaries, and whataboutisms. Chief Justice Roberts would throw you out of the courtroom for wasting his time.

Did you graduate high school? Did you ever have to write a persuasive essay? If not, here's your chance. State your case on why the whistleblower's testimony is relevant, and why any of the associations you are claiming (without evidence) would matter. This is your last chance. Go.

[Unregistered]

You're expecting way too much from a sycophant who does nothing but regurgitate right-wing talking points. It's always a stream of vague accusations and lies, never any thoughtful reasoning or analysis. He's not capable of forming a logical argument. You will not get a response on this.

Spot on. Every post from him confirms this 100%