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

[jc456]

...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 would have to see him flying on a broom. That would prove the Democrats right.

How about you start by reading the call transcript?

and what? what is a crime in it? tell us, we've been waiting. another fking two weeks of boring congressional hearings didn't give us jack shit. so what is it you think you got?

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="berg80, post: 23642812, member: 67275"]

The TRUTH.

AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT WITHOUT A LIE DETECTOR

Another cowardly, nonsensical answer.

Examples of evidence. Be specific.

Asking Trumpette's to answer a serious question with anything other than a conglomeration of nonsense, inane talking points, denial of the facts, and lies.................is an exercise in futility.

hey stupid fk, you have to actually ask a serious question. when will that happen? oops a question. I bet you don't answer. everyone watch!!!!

Asking Trumpette's to answer a serious question with anything other than a conglomeration of nonsense, inane talking points, denial of the facts, and lies.................is an exercise in futility.

I forgot to add vulgarity.[/QUOTE]
hey stupid fk, you have to actually ask a serious question. when will that happen? oops a question. I bet you don't answer. everyone watch!!!!

Still no serious question as I predicted.

 

[Meathead]

...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 would have to see him flying on a broom. That would prove the Democrats right.

How about you start by reading the call transcript?

...and the Mueller Report?

Give it up. You sound more impotent than Pelosi's husband.

 

[debbiedowner]

...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 trump supporter says he could butt rape me and I'd thank him and vote for him again. There is nothing he can do that they would not vote for him again. Nothing

 

[9thIDdoc]

What would it take? Exactly what is required by law: proof (not rumor, conjecture, or guess) that President Trump committed a crime. I'm tickled to death that Dems. have chosen to discredit themselves with this foolishness.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's threatening to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office pretty much gave him immunity from impeachment. Poor Dems

 

[jc456]

...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 would have to see him flying on a broom. That would prove the Democrats right.

How about you start by reading the call transcript?

...and the Mueller Report?

Give it up. You sound more impotent than Pelosi's husband.

 

[jc456]

Dem's threatening to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office pretty much gave him immunity from impeachment. Poor Dems

^^^^^^^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[jc456]

...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 trump supporter says he could butt rape me and I'd thank him and vote for him again. There is nothing he can do that they would not vote for him again. Nothing

you should really avoid stating your fantasies in the message board.

 

[Yarddog]

This is the kind of impeachment attempt our founders were worried about. One that was completely partisan. It divides the country in a way that will do lasting damage between us and guess what? in the end the payout for the DEmocrats will not have been worth it. Hes not getting impeached by the Senate.
There is no clear crime. We need to see a clear crime, not someones opinion on what they thought the president meant in a phone call. We all KNOW the Democrats are looking for any reason to get him out of office.. so this is a great reason why we know they are full of shit. They dont like Trump's policies and they are embarrased by the way he talks... they think hes a rube and they want him out, however that isnt grounds for impeachment.

Yeah because there was no partisan hackery in the Clinton impeachment.

I thought the Clinton Impeachment was a walk down the wrong road as well. There were more important things for congress to be focusing on at that time. But even so, at least with that impeachment there was an actual crime of perjury in court by Clinton. There was a crime verified FIRST and then an impeachment. Here you have Democrats searching for a crime and both houses are battling over definitions.

Definitions are well defined and understood. Unless of course you are the Republican party who want to redefine the truth and facts by using alternative facts. The charges are clear and Trump got caught;

NO evidence. Only supposition, to what was in Trumps mind. It cant be bribery unless Trump called out a demand. A demand for something in return. And there was no evidence Trump was looking forward to the 2020 election... however we know Crowd Strike is in reference to the 2016 election. That is not a crime.
Democrats need to prove a crime with facts! not just come up with suppositions by people with second hand information.
The Democrats are running the House right now Soviet style. You cant even get the phone records of a Terrorist without a court warrant, but you can get them from other members of the House because under schiff rules, they have less rights than foreign nationals.
This crap will come back to bite the Democrats

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Here are my Question's:

1. Name a President that did not use his office to gain something from it?

2. Do you truly believe the Senate will vote to Convict and Remove Trump?

3. By November next year do you believe Moderates and Swing voters will be willing to vote for Biden if the Economy is rolling, and we are not in any major conflicts started by Trump?

4. Why did Pelosi announce the deal with the USMCA on the day of the announcing of the Article's of impeachment?

5. What will it take for you to admit all this is for the hope to beat Trump next year while gaining the Senate and retaining the House and had this been Hillary Clinton or even Barack Hussein Obama you would be defending them?

 

[JWBooth]

...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!”

 

[SweetTea]

Democrats should read what Alan Dershowitz said regarding this impeachment in his interview with Mark Levin. Here is an excerpt with a link to the entire interview below I don't expect any of them to read it nor care. They are all experts you know.

Alan Dershowitz: It would be unconstitutional for President Trump to be impeached on the current record. It would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress. The Constitution sets out four criteria for impeaching a president. Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless one of those criteria is met, Congress does not have the authority to impeach, and if they do, their impeachment would be void. Alexander Hamilton said any act of Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void. Now, Congress maybe can get away with impeaching because there won't be judicial review. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be violating their oath of office. They would be abusing their power if they impeached President Trump on this record.

Mark Levin: And it's a purely political process. Did the framers give illimitable power to the House of Representatives in this regard?

Alan Dershowitz: Of course not. And Maxine Waters has said the same thing. And then she said there is no law. In other words, she is above the law. Congress is above the law. Congress may be able to get away with it, but this confuses what Congress can get away with, with what Congress is sworn to uphold. Any member of Congress who votes to impeach President Trump without a finding that he is guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors is violating their oath of office and abusing their power. Maybe they can get away with it, but they are acting in an unconstitutional fashion.

Mark Levin: There seems to be this idea, I was watching some of these law professors. Honestly, I fell asleep through half of it; I was watching some of these law professors the other day and they sounded like members of Congress. I'm just being honest about it. And they were talking about abuse of power. Talking about bribery and so for -- I was listening to this so I want to turn to you. This word “bribery” really has a specific meaning and it really doesn't have the meaning that many people seem to suggest it does. It doesn't mean everything and anything. It doesn't necessarily mean this. What does it mean?

Alan Dershowitz: There are four criteria. We know what treason means because treason is defined in the Constitution. Bribery. You know, we know it when we see it. When you pay a government official corruptly to perform an illegal act or an act that is motivated by money. But it can't operate when you're the president of the United States and you're conditioning or withholding money in order to make sure that a country isn't corrupt and you're asking them to investigate. That just doesn't fit any definition of bribery, common law definition of bribery, statutory definition of bribery. However you define the constitutional word bribery, it just doesn't fit. What they're trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, the dictator. I'm not comparing our country to the Soviet Union. Just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that. Beria said to Stalin, “show me the man and I'll find you the crime.” And that's what some of the Democrats are doing. They have Trump in their sights. They want to figure out a way of impeaching him and they're searching for a crime. First, they came up with abuse of power. Not a crime, it's not in the Constitution. So now they're saying bribery, but they're making it up. There is no case for bribery based on even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved, which they haven't been, but even if they were to be proved, it would not constitute the impeachable offense of bribery.


Alan Dershowitz says it would be unconstitutional for President Trump to be impeached by current inquiry

 

[jc456]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

What he was asking is what evidence I would need to convince me a crime took place of a crime I know nothing about.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[jc456]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

What he was asking is what evidence I would need to convince me a crime took place of a crime I know nothing about.

Yeah, that makes sense.

yep, that's how the KGB works.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

Article II Section 4 is obviously what is being referred to. But obviously we won't agree on what would be considered a "high crime", which is kind of the point of what I'm asking you.

Let me try one more time.

We know there was a phone call. We know that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a political rival. What specifically would you hypothetically need to see/hear in order for you to conclude that something wrong took place? "Evidence" isn't specific at all. That's about as vague as you can possibly get.

What, in your opinion, would be considered a sufficient level of evidence that a high crime took place and that this whole thing is worthy of impeachment? A hypothetical example would be great.

This is just a way of gauging where your threshold is for this impeachment process. I'm of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing that could be presented that would change your mind about this president. You know, the 5th avenue thing.

I don't think I'll get an actual answer to this, but I tried to clarify it for you.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

What he was asking is what evidence I would need to convince me a crime took place of a crime I know nothing about.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Several things don't make sense to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

so son, where is the hypothetical question in this here post of yours? please, show the question mark in yours? this is your ground zero.

Post 90. Maybe you can help Ray From Cleveland find that.

It's also in the OP. I just restated it differently.

Not that it matters though. We already know that neither of you will actually answer it.

I think Ray nailed it.

What, specifically, would you need to see/hear in order for you to believe that Trump's actions were wrong and worthy of impeachment?

evidence of a crime.

Name the crime and the statute violated.

Article II Section 4 is obviously what is being referred to. But obviously we won't agree on what would be considered a "high crime", which is kind of the point of what I'm asking you.

Let me try one more time.

We know there was a phone call. We know that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a political rival. What specifically would you hypothetically need to see/hear in order for you to conclude that something wrong took place? "Evidence" isn't specific at all. That's about as vague as you can possibly get.

What, in your opinion, would be considered a sufficient level of evidence that a high crime took place and that this whole thing is worthy of impeachment? A hypothetical example would be great.

This is just a way of gauging where your threshold is for this impeachment process. I'm of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing that could be presented that would change your mind about this president. You know, the 5th avenue thing.

I don't think I'll get an actual answer to this, but I tried to clarify it for you.

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.