ENTIRE impeachment thing makes no sense

[candycorn]

1. Pelosi waits what 10 months or so before doing this even though they have whined the entire time Trump needs to be impeached and her crazy new freshman have been pushing ever since they were elected to impeach
2. When you finally pass the 2 impeachment bills etc NEITHER is the "bribery" crap you have been whining about the ENTIRE TIME
3. On the SAME DAY you announce the house voted to pass them you ALSO announce an agreement to vote on the USMCA trade deal,effectively cutting the legs out from under your own impeachment push because other than far left news media CNN is gonna be the only one to keep talking about this and not the trade deal
4. She KNOWS its going no where in the senate and it might actually make Biden and Obama and Schiff and the "whistleblower" come testify etc and the senate can drag it out and make the demoncrats look worse than they already do.
5. It takes a LOT of attention off the presidential candidates effectively muting them

Someone explain this please....I have always heard even from republicans and conservatives Pelosi is a good politician,smart sense in politics etc so WHY all of a sudden give in to the extremist in her party who are loud but still a minority and essentially destroy your chances at winning back the presidency and keeping the house next year?

All this talk about Trump destroying the GOP but it looks to me Pelosi has allowed the crazy minority in her own party to essentially control the democrats. I make a bet she retires after they lose the house next year...she won't watch her party be destroyed by these idiots and she can't stop it though.

Not impeaching after Mueller but impeachment now was always dubious to me. Especially for OOJ.

 

[Polishprince]

Explain Strzok and Paige. Contingency plans and all. Just let the people decide in 2020.

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

This is about the Deep State, not the Dem Party.

And the Mule was a devout Deep Stater.

Remember Donald J Trump turned the GOP upside down before he even got in office

 

[hadit]

Explain Strzok and Paige. Contingency plans and all. Just let the people decide in 2020.

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

They breathlessly awaited every twitch of Mueller's nose, informing us ad nauseum that the walls were closing in, it was only a matter of time, Trump was going to be gone by Christmas, etc. We heard from democrats for years that Trump was guilty of colluding with Russia.

 

[colfax_m]

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

 

[hadit]

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

So you agree the steel dossier was not free or fair.

Huh? The Steele dossier wasn’t a criminal investigation.[/QUOTE......

FISA "court"

So you want me to believe that a secret warrant on a former Trump campaign staffer in a secret investigation that wasn’t revealed until months after the election somehow influenced voters?

How in the Holy Hell did you get that from my post?
You're like bulldog....soon to be on ignore.

 

[colfax_m]

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

They breathlessly awaited every twitch of Mueller's nose, informing us ad nauseum that the walls were closing in, it was only a matter of time, Trump was going to be gone by Christmas, etc. We heard from democrats for years that Trump was guilty of colluding with Russia.

I never thought he did. It didn’t make any sense that he would need to collude. Trump didn’t need to be swayed to Putin’s side. Trump was already good enough the way he is for them. Incompetent. Belligerent. Divisive.

That said, I was really surprised by the extent Trump went to in order to shut the investigation down. The report was way worse than I thought it was going to be.

 

[colfax_m]

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

 

[colfax_m]

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

So you agree the steel dossier was not free or fair.

Huh? The Steele dossier wasn’t a criminal investigation.[/QUOTE......

FISA "court"

So you want me to believe that a secret warrant on a former Trump campaign staffer in a secret investigation that wasn’t revealed until months after the election somehow influenced voters?

How in the Holy Hell did you get that from my post?
You're like bulldog....soon to be on ignore.

To be fair, your post wasn’t formatted right, and if I’m trying to figure out what you did say, it says just two words, FISA court. Maybe you can rephrase it.

 

[hadit]

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

 

[jc456]

Explain Strzok and Paige. Contingency plans and all. Just let the people decide in 2020.

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

and found nothing. and the demofks weren't satisfied. urghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they thought, nothing, well now let's look at that phone call. hly fk would you take a look there, trump said Hi to the new PM, that's impeachable, let's go after it. and here we are.

 

[colfax_m]

I thought he should be impeached for obstruction of justice but apparently that was too “boring”.

It was. They've been focus group testing the charges to find one that sticks with their uneducated base.

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

 

[jc456]

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

I know you're just saying.

 

[jc456]

It was. They've been focus group testing the charges to find one that sticks with their uneducated base.

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

obstruction is obvious? he handed congress the transcript. how is that obstruction? please explain, you're flailing all over the place now.

 

[colfax_m]

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

Who would that be exactly? I thought Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Didn’t Mulvaney also admit it?

 

[hadit]

It was. They've been focus group testing the charges to find one that sticks with their uneducated base.

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

Legally using the courts is not obstruction. He is under no obligation to make anything easy for the attempt. If he, say, destroys cell phones instead of turning them over to investigators, or deletes emails instead of turning them over, that would be obstruction.

 

[colfax_m]

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

obstruction is obvious? he handed congress the transcript. how is that obstruction? please explain, you're flailing all over the place now.

You can’t seriously be this uninformed, can you?

 

[jc456]

It was. They've been focus group testing the charges to find one that sticks with their uneducated base.

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

trump is allowed to challenge a congressional subpoena in court, it's in our judicial system. are you now challenging our judicial system?

 

[hadit]

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

Who would that be exactly? I thought Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Didn’t Mulvaney also admit it?

Who quoted Trump directly saying that he wanted a quid pro quo? And who said, when directly asked, that Trump told him he did NOT want a QPQ?

 

[colfax_m]

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

Legally using the courts is not obstruction. He is under no obligation to make anything easy for the attempt. If he, say, destroys cell phones instead of turning them over to investigators, or deletes emails instead of turning them over, that would be obstruction.

Oh, okay. So maybe we can get to the bottom of this in a few years is what you’re saying?