That's just silly.
What possible evidence could anyone provide for something that hasn't happened yet. Even God couldn't do that.
Oh, so we agree that you were wrong when you stated, "the current overthrow of Trump attempt?" There is nothing in the portion that was a response to that is allegedly occuring in the future.
Trump release every document called for by the legitimate special council.
That is quite a weasely claim and doesn't address what I asked, at all. Even with the Special council there are multiple instances, fully documented in the Mueller Report, that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. And, regardless of your personal feelings or beliefs, this has been ruled by the courts to be
a legitimate impeachment hearing; so no, Trump hasn't released anything close to what has been called for.
His tax returns are not part of the supposed inquiry.
No, they aren't but they are part of other lawsuits against the President and, despite being told to turn them over he is still refusing and trying to fight their release in the courts. Of course, it makes sense that he is trying to hide them since it appears he committed fraud -- either to get loans from banks for to reduce his tax burden -- having different financial reports for banks, that maximized his earnings, and another for his taxes, that showed minimal earnings or even losses.
He doesn't have to allow people who are part of his administration to testify to the congress in general.
This would appear to be false -- though Nixon did try it. I'm guessing it won't work any better for Trump than it did for Nixon, it will merely lead to an Obstruction charge in the Articles of Impeachment.
He certainly doesn't have to when it comes to a gutless one sided faux impeachment inquiry.
Again, it is not one sided and, as noted above, the courts have ruled it is a legal and valid impeachment hearing. As I explained previously, there are 49 Republicans that participate in the Impeachment proceedings and they get equal time to ask questions. It would appear whatever source you are using to get news is lying to you.
That is correct.
I agree with that completely. I'm all for it.
Let's have interviews where the entire committee can be a part of it. Let's not lock the other party out and dribble false impressions of what went on in the secret hearings out to a bias press.
Again, no party is "locked out" -- Republicans on the committee are free to participate on an equal basis. Anything you read that Republican's on the committee are not free to ask questions is a lie.
Again - I agree. Let the House vote for an official impeachment inquiry and we can get the facts out on the table.
And there will be a vote by the full House, when the investigation phase is largely completed -- just as with other impeachment hearings. With Nixon, the committee investigated impeachment charges for around 6 months before the full House voted on impeachment and they held open hearings. With Clinton, the investigation was done by Ken Starr, as an Independent Prosecutor, and as such there was no House investigation.
Why don't we let the Impeachment process play out; allow the House to get all the facts, then allow them to proceed based on the facts found.
Is it possible that you have been sleeping since this whole thing started? More likely you have just been sucking up the pabulum spooned out by the bias fake new folks.
No, I haven't been sleeping and I use a wide variety of news sources. Perhaps you have just been "sucking up the pabulum spooned out" by the fake White House and Republican claims?
They have defended by many Republicans.
No, not really, which is why they are stooping to tactics, such as storming the hearings a few days ago -- just pure publicity stunts and keep talking about "fake impeachment hearings." They can't object to the substance of the charges, since the whistleblower report seems to have largely been proven true. So, they have to object to anything and everything else, "fake" and "one sided" hearings, "no vote by full House", etc.
What is not defensible is the one sided faux impeachment hearing that is going on behind closed door.
Again, what "one sided faux impeachment hearing?" As I've repeatedly stated, Republicans get equal time to ask questions -- in fact, the rules being used are the ones Republicans created during their investigations into the Obama administration. Again, as I asked before, are you claiming the Republicans held "one sided faux hearings" into the Obama administration?
Last, once again, it has been ruled by the courts that this is a valid (not faux) impeachment hearing.
By all means let's have Adam Schiff and the so called whistle blower give us a full rundown on the time line of events involving them and tell us where the lawyer came from who prepared the so called whistle blower complaint.
I'm guessing it will happen eventually; though the evidence I've seen, so far, suggest you'll be very disappointed. The evidence to this point shows that a staffer of Rep. Schiff was approached by the whistleblower, that whistleblowers frequently approach staff members of Congressmen to report things. As in pretty much all cases, the evidence suggests the staffer told the whistleblower to make a report, per whistleblower policy, and submit it to the IG.
The evidence, so far, appears to support the whistleblowers claims. As such, I'm not sure what how such an investigation would help Trump.
I'm all for open to both sides hearing with questions from all quarters.
And when it goes to the full House, as well as the trial in the Senate, that is what will happen. In the meantime, both Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are asking questions.
The Dems know exactly what would happen eve if you don't.
Ignoring the typo, I'm not quite sure what you mean to be implying here.
You're living in a dream world.
Personal attack noted; though it is said when you have to resort to personal attacks it is because you can't defend your claims.
Unless you are delusional or simply taken in by the fake new folks - then you are not telling the truth if you say you can't see the other side of things.
I think you're too intelligent to be telling the truth as you know it to be.
What planet have you been living on? You need to get out more and get some input from someone other than your limited and bias sources.
Ignoring more personal attacks, I read several sources from various viewpoints. I'd suggest you are the one that needs to listen to more viewpoints, and not just biased sources.
You're simply spouting liberal talking points.
No, I'm looking at the evidence and saying what I can see, combined with my knowledge of government and law.
There is no election going on. There isn't any political opponent involved any more than if Trump had asked for an investigation into the activities of the FBI or the CIA or even Nancy Pelosi associated with Ukraine. Neither party has even selected it's candidate yet for any future election. There haven't even been any primaries.
You realize that both Biden and the President are both declared candidates for President, with the necessary documentation submitted to the FEC? As such, they are political opponents, particularly since Biden, at the time, was the leading Democrat that many thought would win the nomination.
You ignore the fact that candidates from the opposing party, particularly when they have no real competition for their party's nomination, will try to find ways to promote or hurt a campaign in the opposite party?
Last, Trump himself has proven he believes Biden is his political opponent -- which is why the weekend after the whistleblower report was made public,
Trump's campaign spent millions on TV ads attacking Biden. I'm sorry, there is just no denying that Trump sees Biden as a political rival, one looking to "take his job."
The transcript is there for all to see. The Dems know what would happen if they impeached on those grounds.
I believe that you do as well and you're being disingenuous to put if politely.
I know what the transcript shows, combined with Trumps action (such as never having the US government open an investigation, including never telling Barr to call Ukraine). I know we've had the White House Chief of Staff basically confirm there was quid pro quo, telling people to "get over it." I also know the opening statement by Bill Taylor was strong evidence of abuse of power by Trump.
