Trump supporters, please explain something to me..

[Ronald]

While his administration cuts food stamps or makes them harder to get.



Could not care less about what the scripture says about why we currently have the most corrupt man in the Oval Office I've seen in my 56 years on the planet.

That's right, he has gotten millions of people off welfare that Obama put on because if the jobs created and robust economy (more jobs than ever before).
Oh, you are an atheist, well, you have more important issues to be concerned about than politics - your soul.

 

[The_Barmecide]

That's right, he has gotten millions of people off welfare that Obama put on because if the jobs created and robust economy (more jobs than ever before).
Oh, you are an atheist, well, you have more important issues to be concerned about than politics - your soul.

yup. My soul. Does that give you a little tingle talking about other people’s souls and imagining you have all the answers? Enjoy the feeling.

 

[Kentonio]

The transcript shows that there was ,no quid quo pro on Trump's conversation with the president of Ukrane, and president of Ukrane said that there was no quid quo pro. Also, Ukrane did not do what Trump wanted and the Unkrane still received the aid.

Oh the ‘transcript’ that isn’t a transcript at all (and says so at the top of the document most people apparently haven’t actually read), and which is just a summary of the call edited by Trumps staff before Trump released it? And even then it STILL shows the president asking a foreign leader for a favour off investigating his political rival. I.E. a quid pro quo. Trump’s chief of staff even admitted it for goodness sake.

If Trump is kicked out then we are a banana republic.

No, if the trial of el presidente is held without witnesses allowed to be called and with the guys who take an oath to be impartial having already announced they aren’t impartial, THEN you’re a banana republic.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Why exactly WOULDN’T you want the Democrats to be able to call administration officials in the impeachment trial?

Why didn't they do it in the House? They had the majority, the power and the opportunity - gotta ask why the heck didn't they do it then???

 

[driewerf]

The point was, that the FBI is capable of setting up and sending anyone to prison.

Is that why Hillary is still free?

Hillary will be judged. No one really gets away with anything. If not in this life, afterwards. She would be better off receiving judgment during this life and repenting.

Oh, the FBI can catch you even in the afterlife?

 

[Kentonio]

Why didn't they do it in the House? They had the majority, the power and the opportunity - gotta ask why the heck didn't they do it then???

Because Trump ordered them not to testify and they then refused to testify.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Because Trump ordered them not to testify and they then refused to testify.

Still the same - You think Trump goes "oh, it's the SENATE! - in that case, let them testify"?

The House could have put it through the courts, just like the Senate would have to, so the question remains - Why didn't the House call them, go through the courts and compel them to testify .

They were in such a mighty hurry to get this done, now they are in delay mode - why? To drag this thing as far into the election year as possible.

Sounds like interfering with a national election they know they cannot win.

 

[Fantine]

Why didn't they do it in the House? They had the majority, the power and the opportunity - gotta ask why the heck didn't they do it then???

Trump prohibited them from testifying. They could have brought it to the courts, but in an election year there was a lot of pressure to get it done.

If Democrats thought that there was still a chance to impeach even if he was reelected, they might not turn out in huge numbers.

If the Senate (as predicted) holds a sham trial ending in a preordained conclusion, Democrats will know that the Senate has put the responsibility to do the only right, moral, and ethical decision possible in their hands, and that if they love and want to save their democracy they will need to come out in unprecedented numbers.

 

[yougottabekidding]

If the Senate (as predicted) holds a sham trial ending in a preordained conclusion, Democrats will know that the Senate has put the responsibility to do the only right, moral, and ethical decision possible in their hands, and that if they love and want to save their democracy they will need to come out in unprecedented numbers.

If the Senate will do the "only right, moral, and ethical decision possible", they will acquit the President

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Sounds like interfering with a national election they know they cannot win.

Ironic considering this whole thing started with Trump trying to interfere in the coming election.

 

[Kentonio]

Still the same - You think Trump goes "oh, it's the SENATE! - in that case, let them testify"?

The House could have put it through the courts, just like the Senate would have to, so the question remains - Why didn't the House call them, go through the courts and compel them to testify .

They were in such a mighty hurry to get this done, now they are in delay mode - why? To drag this thing as far into the election year as possible.

Sounds like interfering with a national election they know they cannot win.

They did start going through the courts. Which the Republicans made clear they were going to drag out through appeals for many months, meaning impeachment would have been too close to the election. Personally I’d have taken the court thing to it’s conclusion too, but it’s more than a little rich pretending it was the Democrats playing games when it was the Republicans desperately trying to avoid having to testify under oath.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Ironic considering this whole thing started with Trump trying to interfere in the coming election.

It certainly is: They ended up doing exactly what they accused and never proved the President did.

 

[yougottabekidding]

They did start going through the courts. Which the Republicans made clear they were going to drag out through appeals for many months, meaning impeachment would have been too close to the election. Personally I’d have taken the court thing to it’s conclusion too, but it’s more than a little rich pretending it was the Democrats playing games when it was the Republicans desperately trying to avoid having to testify under oath.

So...… what has changed that the House didn't want to do it, but they do want the Senate to do it??

 

[Hank77]

The articles of impeachment submitted to the Senate is "abuse of power". Although "abuse of power" is bad, if it can be proven, it is not a crime so it is not an impeachable offense.

Abuse of power is an impeachable offense, there are rules to follow even for the President.
George W. English Judge, U.S. district court, Eastern District of Illinois Impeached April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power

William D. Boies; Frederick H. Dominick; Ira G. Hersey; Earl C. Michener; Andrew J. Montague; Charles E. Moore; George R. Stobbs; John N. Tillman; Hatton Sumners

Dates of trial - April 23–December 13, 1926
English resigned November 4, 1926; proceedings dismissed December 13, 1926
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/

The House considered charging Clinton with abuse of power but decided not to.

 

[Kentonio]

So...… what has changed that the House didn't want to do it, but they do want the Senate to do it??

The house did want to do it, the Republicans obstructed them. And since then Trump has claimed he wants people to testify. So let them testify.

 

[stevil]

because the issue is the democrats don't want Trump to be president.

Of course the Democrats wanted to win the election and didn't want the Republicans to win.
So what?
Trump did win, and he is the president. This seems to be something the Trump supporters need to get over. I'm not sure why you have such a persecution complex. Your guy won. Be happy. Stop whinging.

convictions that had no need for an appointment of a special council.

According to the investigation into the investigators, there was a legitimate need to investigate.

The Special Council investigation was put into place by a Republican, it had nothing to do with the Democrats.

Bringing them up is nothing but a smoke screen to hide the fact the investigation found no collusion, which is what it was supposed to be looking for.

The investigation was about whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election through nefarious means. Nothing of this nature was ever found.

The investigation was never about Trump.
It had two parts to it.
1. investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections,
2. including exploring any links or coordination between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government;

All up they indicted thirty-four individuals and three companies
Eight have plead guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials.

They found many links between Trump Campaign persons and the Russian government. Including a secret meeting at Trump tower to get dirt on Hilary and sharing of polling data.

So now we are onto the next investigation; whether Trump engaged in a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine.

Yes. This is unrelated to the Russia investigation.
This is a direct investigation into the sitting president and has been taken up by Congress and rejected by William Barr as head of the Justice Department.

The content of the phone call was made public and no witness brought forward could testify anything was withheld pending any particular outcome.

We know that aid was withheld, is was held up within 90 minutes of the phone call.
Many testified that the aid was contingent on a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma.

At this point it's about overturning the election, not crimes, and all your doing is proving this beyond a shadow of any doubt.

Noone can over turn the election. The election has been made over three years ago. Trump has been president for over three years. The Republicans won office.
An impeachment of Trump doesn't overturn the election, doesn't give office to the Democrats. This is just silly talk.

 

[Hank77]

I'm not a lawyer.

I'm looking for a formal announcement of the Articles against Trump to begin the trial.

Then I'm looking for McConnell to suggest (if he thinks he has the majority of votes) the charges to be dropped on the grounds of no crime has been established in the House as to be considered reasonable.

Like I say, I am not a lawyer, anything is possible.

If the Senate doesn't think he is guilty of the charges then they just vote to acquit. They don't have the power to drop the charges, only the House can do that and I don't think even they can once the charges are turned over to the Senate.

 

[stevil]

The transcript showed that there was no quid quo pro.

"I need you to do us a favour though"

Trump was investigating the corruption of Joe Biden

Trump is the president, he isn't an investigator.

Trump told the Ukraine president
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

This was a lie, because Joe didn't stop any prosecution. He removed a prosecutor who was corrupt and failed to investigate corruption.

who boasted how he was able to pressure Ukrane (while under attack from Russia) to fire the investigator of Hunter Biden. Why is Crooked Joe getting a free pass?

Hunter Biden was never under any investigation. Why are you stating non truths?
There has never been any evidence presented that Joe has done any wrong doing, that is why he is not being investigated either by Ukraine or by the USA. He's not getting a free pass for anything.

Obama wire-tapped candidate Trump to help the Dems in the upcoming 2016 election. But he got away with it.

This unfounded allegation was made by Trump via tweet. The FBI looked into it and judged that it was a baseless allegation. There is no truth to this allegation.

 

[yougottabekidding]

If the Senate doesn't think he is guilty of the charges then they just vote to acquit. They don't have the power to drop the charges, only the House can do that and I don't think even they can once the charges are turned over to the Senate.

You are correct - the House impeachment stands regardless of the action in the Senate.

 

[Charlie24]

If the Senate doesn't think he is guilty of the charges then they just vote to acquit. They don't have the power to drop the charges, only the House can do that and I don't think even they can once the charges are turned over to the Senate.

I have read from Senators that the House can choose yea or nay to impeach.

The Senate can choose yea or nay to accept the trial. The chair (chief justice) will decide if this is constitutional, it has never been done but can be done.

If McConnell has the votes to stop the trial for not having enough evidence and the chair can find no legality in the Constitution to stop it, it is over.

The Constitution is very open about impeachment trials, just in cast it's a sham lacking evidence (such as this) to remove a sitting president.

There must be strong evidence for this to happen. The Dems don't have it.