ENTIRE impeachment thing makes no sense

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

Rudy isn’t a prosecutor though. He doesn’t have any authority. Sending your personal lawyer makes it a lot more credible that it was a personal endeavor.

Did you not read what I wrote? Is English your 2nd language? Honestly.

Seems like it was a bit of a straw man.

What? You don’t even know what that means. I said Trump still believes he is an A+ prosecutor. That’s why he sent him in. I also said it was stupid.

 

[jc456]

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?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

Rudy isn’t a prosecutor though. He doesn’t have any authority. Sending your personal lawyer makes it a lot more credible that it was a personal endeavor.

and shitt's isn't president and is only a member of the house. he thinks he has more rights than all of us.

 

[hadit]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

By doing what? Legally taking things to court? What's your hurry, really want something done before the election?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

Words mean things, and unless you have clear evidence that someone meant one thing when they said something completely different, you can't prosecute them for it. In this case, Trump literally said he did NOT want a quid pro quo. Now, that means you're going to have to have something a lot more convincing than a handful of people saying things like, "I presume the president wanted one", or "I assumed when he said he didn't want one that he really meant he did", or, "everyone in the office thought he wanted one", and things like that.

Actions speak louder than words. If I stick a gun in a bank tellers face and say “this isn’t a robbery but if you feel generous put the cash in the bag”, how would that go?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

He is? How is he doing that? He released the fucking call transcript.

Are you not aware that Trump has a blanket order to ignore all House document requests and subpoenas?

Yes. He believes it to be a witch hunt. Holder did the same thing under Obama. It too was a witch hunt.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

all trump has to do is testify under oath and bring his cartel with him -

yanno- like Bill Clinton did -

He has to testify to his intent? He released the call transcript. Clinton was caught lying cause of the dress.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

By doing what? Legally taking things to court? What's your hurry, really want something done before the election?

Well, since Trump is trying to corrupt the election, I’d say it’s pretty important we get this figured out by then.

What’s wrong with demanding transparency?

 

[jc456]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

again, for now the third time for you, you know that a citizen can challenge subpoenas, right? so how exactly is doing what's legal, obstruction? please explain.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

He is? How is he doing that? He released the fucking call transcript.

Are you not aware that Trump has a blanket order to ignore all House document requests and subpoenas?

Yes. He believes it to be a witch hunt. Holder did the same thing under Obama. It too was a witch hunt.

Holder did not order a blanket denial of all subpoenas.

 

[Circe]

Are you not aware that Trump has a blanket order to ignore all House document requests and subpoenas?

I should hope so! Otherwise the country will be run by the Communist Central Committee, the Democrats. I'm pretty sure that's not how the Constitution says it should work.

 

[hadit]

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?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

Words mean things, and unless you have clear evidence that someone meant one thing when they said something completely different, you can't prosecute them for it. In this case, Trump literally said he did NOT want a quid pro quo. Now, that means you're going to have to have something a lot more convincing than a handful of people saying things like, "I presume the president wanted one", or "I assumed when he said he didn't want one that he really meant he did", or, "everyone in the office thought he wanted one", and things like that.

Actions speak louder than words. If I stick a gun in a bank tellers face and say “this isn’t a robbery but if you feel generous put the cash in the bag”, how would that go?

More accurately, how is it robbing a bank if none of the tellers say you ever stuck a gun in their face, but someone who hates you insists that he heard someone say you wanted to?

 

[Polishprince]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

all trump has to do is testify under oath and bring his cartel with him -

yanno- like Bill Clinton did -

You never know, President Trump may well testify under oath before the US Senate.

But he hasn't had that opportunity yet, the articles of impeachment haven't been voted on yet.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

again, for now the third time for you, you know that a citizen can challenge subpoenas, right? so exactly is doing what's legal, obstruction? please explain.

Trump hasn’t challenged any subpoenas. He’s just ignored them. What do you think would happen if you just ignored a subpoena?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

By doing what? Legally taking things to court? What's your hurry, really want something done before the election?

Well, since Trump is trying to corrupt the election, I’d say it’s pretty important we get this figured out by then.

What’s wrong with demanding transparency?

He is? And you have proof of that? Because intent is nearly impossible to prove. 2016 was mentioned several times. 2020 never. Not illegal to investigate what happened in 2016. Trump claims that was the intent. How do you prove him wrong? How do you prove intent?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

Words mean things, and unless you have clear evidence that someone meant one thing when they said something completely different, you can't prosecute them for it. In this case, Trump literally said he did NOT want a quid pro quo. Now, that means you're going to have to have something a lot more convincing than a handful of people saying things like, "I presume the president wanted one", or "I assumed when he said he didn't want one that he really meant he did", or, "everyone in the office thought he wanted one", and things like that.

Actions speak louder than words. If I stick a gun in a bank tellers face and say “this isn’t a robbery but if you feel generous put the cash in the bag”, how would that go?

More accurately, how is it robbing a bank if none of the tellers say you ever stuck a gun in your face, but someone who hates you insists that you did?

The aid was held up, wasn’t it?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

He is? How is he doing that? He released the fucking call transcript.

Are you not aware that Trump has a blanket order to ignore all House document requests and subpoenas?

Yes. He believes it to be a witch hunt. Holder did the same thing under Obama. It too was a witch hunt.

Holder did not order a blanket denial of all subpoenas.

Holder just refused to appear. Why was that?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

By doing what? Legally taking things to court? What's your hurry, really want something done before the election?

Well, since Trump is trying to corrupt the election, I’d say it’s pretty important we get this figured out by then.

What’s wrong with demanding transparency?

He is? And you have proof of that? Because intent is nearly impossible to prove. 2016 was mentioned several times. 2020 never. Not illegal to investigate what happened in 2016. Trump claims that was the intent. How do you prove him wrong? How do you prove intent?

Biden was also mentioned. Perhaps you missed that bit.

You prove intent in a lot of ways. I’ve been describing them here.

 

[jc456]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

again, for now the third time for you, you know that a citizen can challenge subpoenas, right? so exactly is doing what's legal, obstruction? please explain.

Trump hasn’t challenged any subpoenas. He’s just ignored them. What do you think would happen if you just ignored a subpoena?

so you didn't do well in school looking into things I see. Yes he took the subpoenas to court.

 

[hadit]

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?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

Words mean things, and unless you have clear evidence that someone meant one thing when they said something completely different, you can't prosecute them for it. In this case, Trump literally said he did NOT want a quid pro quo. Now, that means you're going to have to have something a lot more convincing than a handful of people saying things like, "I presume the president wanted one", or "I assumed when he said he didn't want one that he really meant he did", or, "everyone in the office thought he wanted one", and things like that.

Actions speak louder than words. If I stick a gun in a bank tellers face and say “this isn’t a robbery but if you feel generous put the cash in the bag”, how would that go?

More accurately, how is it robbing a bank if none of the tellers say you ever stuck a gun in your face, but someone who hates you insists that you did?

The aid was held up, wasn’t it?

And the recipient wasn't aware that it was and said Trump didn't try to shake him down.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

again, for now the third time for you, you know that a citizen can challenge subpoenas, right? so exactly is doing what's legal, obstruction? please explain.

Trump hasn’t challenged any subpoenas. He’s just ignored them. What do you think would happen if you just ignored a subpoena?

Yes because he says it’s a witch hunt. Round and round we go. Why not let the people decide. Not you but we Americans. You’re a fucking foreigner anyway. Why do you care?