Opinion: Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Report Exonerates President Trump

[Jitss617]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

What sane person would vote for a democrat at this point?’maybe tulsi? But all these new democrat candidates for Congress should have to answer tough questions! On environment, (crazy green new deal) Open borders, men in the little girls locker room, infanticide... IF REPUBLICANS DONT RUN ON THESE ISSUES.. you deserve to lose republicans!

Repubs run on the issues? That's a bad idea. Nothing the POT stands for is popular with the majority of Americans. Better stick with fear mongering and lies. That's the thing that's worked well in the past.

 

[iceberg]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

that is a significant difference.

 

[Jitss617]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

Would you like me to start a poll here find out if people think what Hillary did was legal??you live on a island

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

that is a significant difference.

Yes, it really is.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

Would you like me to start a poll here find out if people think what Hillary did was legal??you live on a island

I do not think what she did was legal. But what you and I think does not fucking matter...Hillary is still walking around free and will be for life.

 

[Jitss617]

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

Would you like me to start a poll here find out if people think what Hillary did was legal??you live on a island

I do not think what she did was legal. But what you and I think does not fucking matter...Hillary is still walking around free and will be for life.

Hmm we will see..

 

[iceberg]

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

it seems to have been for hillary - and to a point, i guess that *is* my point. if she can hide behind "didn't intend to" then to exonerate all, you allow this for others. you set a precedence and you will hear "intent" time and time again as a defense cause it was allowed for her.

the snowball just keeps getting bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

The difference between the two is that Hilary's charges were legal, while an impeachment is 100% political. The standards are not the same

Would you like me to start a poll here find out if people think what Hillary did was legal??you live on a island

I do not think what she did was legal. But what you and I think does not fucking matter...Hillary is still walking around free and will be for life.

yep. and that is the frustrating part. we have perfect examples of different rules for people. we like to pretend this is something new, but been this way as long as we've had people.

 

[ThisIsMe]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

I think intent is necessary. This whole thing has been based upon the assumption that trump wanted biden looked into for his own personal gain, to have ukraine help him in his election.

Without the intent of trump doing that for personal reasons, then what is left is trump doing that because he actually thought there was some wrongdoing on biden, and his son, that needed looking into.

Without the intent, there is no "high crime and misdemeanor" on which trump impeachment is necessary.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

I think intent is necessary. This whole thing has been based upon the assumption that trump wanted biden looked into for his own personal gain, to have ukraine help him in his election.

Without the intent of trump doing that for personal reasons, then what is left is trump doing that because he actually thought there was some wrongdoing on biden, and his son, that needed looking into.

Without the intent, there is no "high crime and misdemeanor" on which trump impeachment is necessary.

a "high crime" is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Schiff and Biden should be happy to testify in the Senate

hey - if trump didn't have corrupt intent, then even if he broke a law or 2, he didn't mean to.

right? isn't that the way it is now? no intent to break the law means they're fine. move along?

don't cover yourself in bullshit excuses if you won't allow others to do the same. PERIOD.

No crime necessary...nor even intent it seems...

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

Which leftwinger is the source of that horseshit?

I've heard it said multiple times that impeachment can be for whatever reason the house wants. I think this is incorrect. I think impeachment was meant for serious infractions by the president that caused the country great harm. Otherwise, if it was for anything the house wanted, that means the balance of power would be askew, and the president would basically serve at the pleasure of the house.

 

[ThisIsMe]

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

I think intent is necessary. This whole thing has been based upon the assumption that trump wanted biden looked into for his own personal gain, to have ukraine help him in his election.

Without the intent of trump doing that for personal reasons, then what is left is trump doing that because he actually thought there was some wrongdoing on biden, and his son, that needed looking into.

Without the intent, there is no "high crime and misdemeanor" on which trump impeachment is necessary.

a "high crime" is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree, see post 30

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is almost as funny as spending 3 years looking for criminal financial dealings and all you can find is lying about a blow job.

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

I think intent is necessary. This whole thing has been based upon the assumption that trump wanted biden looked into for his own personal gain, to have ukraine help him in his election.

Without the intent of trump doing that for personal reasons, then what is left is trump doing that because he actually thought there was some wrongdoing on biden, and his son, that needed looking into.

Without the intent, there is no "high crime and misdemeanor" on which trump impeachment is necessary.

a "high crime" is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree, see post 30

I do not disagree with your post #30, but the people that actually matter do.

See post #5. That was from a Repub...before a Repub was being impeached.

 

[Crepitus]

Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Report Exonerates President Trump.

this paragraph stuck out:
Every fact in the Democrats’ case has been contested—starting with whether or not Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine. But the most obvious example of Democrats presuming, not proving, the necessary facts is their complete failure to demonstrate Trump had “corrupt” intent. Democrats assert—without evidence—that President Trump’s motivation in seeking investigations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and Burisma was his own personal political interests.
----
and it's 100% true. the left dove on this like a duck on a junebug and *assumed* it was because it was for trumps own political gain. yet none of that has been proven.

just "assumed".

if he is truly looking into corruption and the activities of the left 2 things would happen:
1. he would make that phone call
2. the left, if corrupt, would go apeshit to discredit anything he was doing.

looks like both happened.

as the left loves to tell trump, if you've nothing to hide, let it all out for us to see. yet, where are they when it comes to looking into what THEY have done over the last decade? throwing up FAKE NEWS, just ignoring you, accusing the right of what they are being looked into doing and so forth.

if the left has done nothing wrong, what's wrong with trump having the complaints from the ukraine looked into? i mean, they didn't do it so nothing would be found, right? a lot like the mueller reports...

yet, here we are. no laws have been broken and there is zero proof trump did it for political gain vs. following up and doing his job.

it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.

This may be the dumbest dodge yet.

You don't do corrupt things without corrupt intent.

Next you're gonna be telling us he accidentally robbed a bank.

 

[iceberg]

would be hilarious if i said i supported clinton being impeached, huh?

i think all we do anymore is investigate whether a reason is needed or not. yes i believe crimes have occurred but no i don't think anyone will ever pay for them. the scariest part of that scenario is where do we go from here? punish one side the other is going to cry FOUL and return the favor, as we've been doing more or less SINCE clinton.

i think all this trump bullshit is in fact, bullshit. i don't base this on past behaviors or actions but on it's own "merit" (using the term loosely to be sure).

so - if we just look at trump and this article, does it have merit? did the dems prove intent? does intent even matter in something like this?

my real question comes to - as i said - where do we go from here? is it really what anyone wants OVERALL or just immediate gratification and an emotional rescue. i'm going to stop as i got 2 70s classic song titles snuck into that sentence and i'm going to call it a day.

Is intent necessary?

Going buy the answer from Lindsey Graham above, it seems that all that is necessary is getting enough votes. Is intent necessary for something to be "clearly out of bounds in your role"?

Not sure what happens next...irregardless of if they impeach him or not. Obviously the Senate will not convict him. I said at the beginning of this that if Trump were impeached it would change the country forever and no president would ever finish a term unscathed.

But Trump is such an outlier, that I am not sure what happens next.

I think much of that will depend on Nov. If they impeach him and he loses in Nov or he squeaks out a win and the Dems take back the Senate while holding the House then this might become the norm.

But if the Dems are blown out come Nov, lose the House and Trump wins by a larger margin (which would be very hard not to) then perhaps future parties will go "well, that was a bad idea, lets not do that again".

I think intent is necessary. This whole thing has been based upon the assumption that trump wanted biden looked into for his own personal gain, to have ukraine help him in his election.

Without the intent of trump doing that for personal reasons, then what is left is trump doing that because he actually thought there was some wrongdoing on biden, and his son, that needed looking into.

Without the intent, there is no "high crime and misdemeanor" on which trump impeachment is necessary.

a "high crime" is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree, see post 30

I do not disagree with your post #30, but the people that actually matter do.

See post #5. That was from a Repub...before a Repub was being impeached.

and one thing i love to do is pull past quotes and hold people accountable to it when it's their turn.

this would be one that comes back to bite the right. they defined the field, play on it.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Next you'll be saying Trump never even made the call. Repubs are not factually contesting any of the evidence of Trump's guilt. They are simply claiming the sky is not blue.

There is no evidence of Trump's guilt, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 293453 View attachment 293454

The Trump pics are photoshopped. I've seen the original versions.

 

[dudmuck]

Next you'll be saying Trump never even made the call. Repubs are not factually contesting any of the evidence of Trump's guilt. They are simply claiming the sky is not blue.

There is no evidence of Trump's guilt, moron.

Its abuse of office.

Withholding aid for personal benefit, bribery.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 293453 View attachment 293454

The Trump pics are photoshopped. I've seen the original versions.

Then do not just talk about it, show us the original versions.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 293453 View attachment 293454

The Trump pics are photoshopped. I've seen the original versions.

how about these...are they all photoshopped...