Search results for query: *

A. I have never heard this senator's name before B. He's literally saying "given the grounds Trump was Impeached on Joe Biden has already committed an offense at least as impeachable" C. Legal Scholars have already laid out how, with the standard the Trump Impeachment set, EVERY PRIOR President...

the problem Carl, is that Impeachment hasn't been declared a mistrial. Question, did YOU hear of a Minority Day Hearing? If the Dems secure the Senate and the Presidency, we'll have an effectively one party system.

I think the Senate NEEDS to declare a mistrial or do SOMETHING to ensure that this doesn't set ANY precedent of "how to do things validly" Otherwise, well, if you can validly not have a minority day hearing in an IMPEACHMENT of all things when DO you have to have one? I don't wanna live in a...

Ok, so, the Democrat argument is that Trump didn't WANT an investigation, he wanted the APPEARANCE of an investigation as a smear. In theory, that could be argued to be a crime. The problem of course, is that they don't actually have the evidence to prove that he wanted only the appearance, so...

he liked Bernie when Bernie was left wing Trump who called himself a socialist while not actually being one. Then Bernie went hard left and the latest news on Tim's opinion of the fellow is "No."

for feths sake, Bill Clinton didn't get impeached even when literally EVERYONE, including his own party, knew and AGREED that he'd commited Perjury. To hide an affair... like seriously I don't get why anyone thought impeachment meant anything after THAT.

it's also worth noting that while Trump lost the house, nearly every prior president lost the house/senate HARDER in their first midterm election.

If they'd actually presented any evidence that Trump was concerned about Biden electionwise I'd be somewhat iffy... as is, the closest they have is hearsay of hearsay that it was about Ukraine announcing an investigation. Of course, by that standard we have to ask if Obama's investigations into...

...so, has anyone been watching the actual hearings? is there anything potentially there?

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Officially have Inmates running the Asylum!

eh, have you SEEN the protests? Dem's in Dem strongholds have been getting BOOED by Dem Voters when they speak of impeachment. The only people who want impeachment are nuts.

...When that intel system has straight up said it doesn't like Trump and would like it very much if he'd never gotten elected some distrust of them is, perhaps, only natural. When the President apparently can't trust ANY level of classification to stay secret some distrust is, certainly, only...

the hearsay vid is, fine... the first one says "This transcript is as bad as Watergate and I have no idea how anyone could ever possibly claim anything else." Basically the hearsay one is "well yes it is hearsay but legally speaking hearsay can be evidence under a lot of conditions and hey, if...

unless he was asking them to make shit up I consider a President telling someone receiving military aid "look into this specific, known, example of corruption and make sure it won't happen again" entirely legitimate. And if someone thinks that would be grounds to impeach the President because...

...it doesn't even SAY there will be a Civil War? Did anyone even actually read it? "a Civil War like fracture"=/="a Civil War"

well...

it's not the "quid pro quo" in and of itself, it's that it's theoretically involving a domestic political rival.

like, you COULD spin this to be Quid-Pro-Quo... but it'd be somewhat hard and I suspect it'll be made VASTLY harder for a decent chunk of America by the Russiagate thing. Also well... look at the response in cash by Trump's base following announcements of pursuit of an Impeachment vote. Even...

except it wasn't actually a whistleblower. the guy who went to the press had no firsthand knowledge of the call, or what was said in the call.