Hypothetically speaking, Trump supporters, what would need to happen for you to believe the...

[BWK]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Nothing! They don't care if he is guilty. They could care less.

 

[Billy000]

When I'm asked "what kind of evidence" it's already been answered.

False. "Proof!" is not an answer. You are being asked to name specific examples of evidence that would constitute proof, in your eyes.

Now why is it that not ONE single trump cultist can grow the stones to answer this?

You asked and it was answered several times....it would have been nice if the dems had a smoking gun or some actual evidence to provide
that could be used in a court of law and not what's commonly used in a kangaroo court

How hard is this to get? I need a specific hypothetical example.

 

[BWK]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

One single, solitary shred of proof would be a good starter and I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson.

Uh okay but I asked for a specific hypothetical example and you can’t even tell me something so simple.

I don't do hypotheticals. Say he committed a crime? Provide proof of that crime. And that's it. Real proof. Proof admissible in a court of law.

That is going to be very easy when Trump leaves office.

 

[Billy000]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

One single, solitary shred of proof would be a good starter and I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson.

Uh okay but I asked for a specific hypothetical example and you can’t even tell me something so simple.

I don't do hypotheticals. Say he committed a crime? Provide proof of that crime. And that's it. Real proof. Proof admissible in a court of law.

Okay well gee, your argument is garbage without an example.

 

[Billy000]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

We're not seeing an investigation, everything has been predetermined, from the day palousey announced the inquiry, without seeing any evidence. The later rigged inquiry vote, the speaker saying Trump was an impostor president and then demanding the judiciary committee draw up articles of impeachment, in the military we called that improper command influence.

But perhaps if the commies would abide by the house rules that require the intel and judiciary committees allow a minority hearing day and allow them to call the witnesses they want to hear from. That might lend a speck of legitimacy to the kangaroo court we're now witnessing.

.

Um okay, so hypothetically, should an independent body investigate Trump instead? Shouldn’t it?

 

[airplanemechanic]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

One single, solitary shred of proof would be a good starter and I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson.

Uh okay but I asked for a specific hypothetical example and you can’t even tell me something so simple.

I don't do hypotheticals. Say he committed a crime? Provide proof of that crime. And that's it. Real proof. Proof admissible in a court of law.

Okay well gee, your argument is garbage without an example.

No, YOUR ARGUMENT is garbage without an example.

 

[Billy000]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

A witness would be a start.

That would be the whistle blower. Just because you think he should reveal himself does not mean he doesn’t exist.

 

[BWK]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

In his latest column, Chris Hedges offers a possible third alternative for why so many Republicans support Trump:

The Great American Shakedown

"The mortal wounds inflicted on our democratic institutions are bipartisan.

"The traditional Republican elites are as hated as the Democratic elites.

"Trump is vile, imbecilic, corrupt and incompetent.

"But for a largely white working class cast aside by austerity and neoliberalism, he at least taunts the elites who destroyed their communities and their lives."

Which is nothing more than a facade. His base are nothing but useful idiots for his own enrichment. And they are just too stupid to see it.

 

[Billy000]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

One single, solitary shred of proof would be a good starter and I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson.

Uh okay but I asked for a specific hypothetical example and you can’t even tell me something so simple.

I don't do hypotheticals. Say he committed a crime? Provide proof of that crime. And that's it. Real proof. Proof admissible in a court of law.

Okay well gee, your argument is garbage without an example.

No, YOUR ARGUMENT is garbage without an example.

 

[XponentialChaos]

In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well.

An actual specific answer would be great, but not expected.

 

[Dr Grump]

I would need to see evidence of real wrong doing like shipping $1.5 billion dollars in cash to a Terrorist State. Or shipping automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartel. You know REAL wrongdoing a.k.a high crimes and misdemeanors. Does that make sense?

If that actually happened. You might have a point. It didn't.

 

[Meister]

When I'm asked "what kind of evidence" it's already been answered.

False. "Proof!" is not an answer. You are being asked to name specific examples of evidence that would constitute proof, in your eyes.

Now why is it that not ONE single trump cultist can grow the stones to answer this?

You asked and it was answered several times....it would have been nice if the dems had a smoking gun or some actual evidence to provide
that could be used in a court of law and not what's commonly used in a kangaroo court

How hard is this to get? I need a specific hypothetical example.

Dude....If Trump had said the same thing as Biden's quid pro quo, I would be a believer that there was quid pro quo.

 

[Dr Grump]

We're not seeing an investigation, everything has been predetermined, from the day palousey announced the inquiry, without seeing any evidence. The later rigged inquiry vote, the speaker saying Trump was an impostor president and then demanding the judiciary committee draw up articles of impeachment, in the military we called that improper command influence.

But perhaps if the commies would abide by the house rules that require the intel and judiciary committees allow a minority hearing day and allow them to call the witnesses they want to hear from. That might lend a speck of legitimacy to the kangaroo court we're now witnessing.

.

Not true. In fact, Pelosi had to be dragged kicking and screaming to announce it in the first place. It should have been announced a lot sooner, but she didnt want to because she knows that the right-wing are the screamers and shouters and party of no responsibility. This isn't about the truth, it's about who has the best PR team. US politics. Don't you just love it!

 

[Billy000]

Evidence.

Such as what?

 

[Nostra]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Your thread is just more proof of just how weak your pathetic impeachment case is.

Thanks for this thread.

 

[Auld Phart]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Nothing! They don't care if he is guilty. They could care less.

They don't care if he is guilty. They could care less.

and the Democrats don't care if he is innocent. They could care less.

I'm not seeing anyone crossing the aisle at this point.

 

[Meister]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Nothing! They don't care if he is guilty. They could care less.

They don't care if he is guilty. They could care less.

and the Democrats don't care if he is innocent. They could care less.

I'm not seeing anyone crossing the aisle at this point.

From the day he was in office they said he was going to be impeached.
I know I know the left says there is no agenda.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Evidence.

Such as what?

How about a valid charge? Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. What did Trump ever do that could be considered a misdemeanor or higher?

You can't say quid pro quo's are a misdemeanor. Presidents (including DumBama) have been using them for decades.

You can't say that even if he used one, it was for personal benefit because you have no idea who the nominee will be.

You can't claim obstruction of justice until the Supreme Court rules that Trump was not exercising executive privilege properly.

So what have you got? Nothing.

 

[BrokeLoser]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

hahaha..You poor hardcore TDS'ers...This was all over before it ever began. You see, there was this little call transcript that got released early on which totally exonerated Trump and proved there was no wrongdoing. Some weird, crazy motherfuckers convinced a bunch of even crazier motherfuckers like yourself that there was something worth 'investigating'...Since the dumbmotherfuckers started investigating they are hellbent on proving their crazy ass selves right...The problem is; sane people are paying attention and simply watching you dumbmotherfuckers make complete asses of yourselves yet again...haha...Thanks for all the laughs.

 

[airplanemechanic]

In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well.

An actual specific answer would be great, but not expected.

An actual specific question would be nice.

Let me ask liberals this.

Let's say that Donald Trump Jr. was on the board of Burisma. As president, Trump called and threatened to withhold a billion dollars of taxpayer money if they didn't fire the prosecutor looking into DTJ's company. The prosecutor is fired in less than 6 hours.

Would YOU call that quid pro quo?