Could the impeachment process cost the Dems among Independents?

[Ken Rank]

The Democrats can't control the Senate during the trial. It must happen before the primary elections start and knowing that, Mitch McConnell wants to hurry it up.

There is no remotely decent reason at all for the Senate to acquit Donald Trump. Every Senator who says "Nay" is selfish and corrupt.

First of all, there have been no articles of impeachment filed yet... so the Senate can't do anything. They might not file... but since they haven't, you can't put a date on it. Second, you clearly hate Trump and that is the lens you are looking through right now. Lastly, he is innocent on this one anyway. What they are claiming he did is EXACTLY what Biden admits to having done himself.

Here he is, admitting to having blackmailed the Ukrainian President. Mind you, one of Shift's star witnesses, ask Trump what he wanted from Ukraine and Trump said, "Nothing." Which is exactly what this investigation turned up, nothing.

Forward to a minute 30 (1:30) and hear Joe in all his glory admit to blackmail.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I am not looking through a Trump hatred lens when I say he is guilty. I know the U.S. Constitution states explicitly "bribery, treason, and high crimes or misdemanors" are cause for impeachment and removal, so Trump has committed multiple impeachable acts. Anyone who denies this does not know what the causes for impeachment are, which makes no sense because this stuff is taught in high schools.

 

[whatbogsends]

First of all, there have been no articles of impeachment filed yet... so the Senate can't do anything. They might not file... but since they haven't, you can't put a date on it. Second, you clearly hate Trump and that is the lens you are looking through right now. Lastly, he is innocent on this one anyway. What they are claiming he did is EXACTLY what Biden admits to having done himself.

Here he is, admitting to having blackmailed the Ukrainian President. Mind you, one of Shift's star witnesses, ask Trump what he wanted from Ukraine and Trump said, "Nothing." Which is exactly what this investigation turned up, nothing.

Forward to a minute 30 (1:30) and hear Joe in all his glory admit to blackmail.

Trump's statement to Sondland about "No quid pro quo" was only after the whistleblower complaint had been filed and the House was investigating actions related to the July 25 phone call.

It's much akin to someone hiding things in their jacket, walking out of a store, and when questioned by store security, pulling the items out of his jacket, placing them on the ground and saying "There was no shoplifting".

The investigation turned up plenty, and Trump's denial is in stark contrast to the evidence that has been accumulated.

 

[rjs330]

Trump's statement to Sondland about "No quid pro quo" was only after the whistleblower complaint had been filed and the House was investigating actions related to the July 25 phone call.

It's much akin to someone hiding things in their jacket, walking out of a store, and when questioned by store security, pulling the items out of his jacket, placing them on the ground and saying "There was no shoplifting".

The investigation turned up plenty, and Trump's denial is in stark contrast to the evidence that has been accumulated.

Complete and utter supposition.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think we can actually sat one way or another yet. The articles haven't come out and there hasn't been a Senate trial. As we know people can quickly change their minds and we won't really know how the independents feel until after the Senate trial.

 

[rjs330]

Trump's statement to Sondland about "No quid pro quo" was only after the whistleblower complaint had been filed and the House was investigating actions related to the July 25 phone call.

It's much akin to someone hiding things in their jacket, walking out of a store, and when questioned by store security, pulling the items out of his jacket, placing them on the ground and saying "There was no shoplifting".

The investigation turned up plenty, and Trump's denial is in stark contrast to the evidence that has been accumulated.

Even if there was quid pro quo it's not a violation of law at this point because no one has been able to prove the president personally got anything of value.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Complete and utter supposition.

It is not supposition at all if anyone has evidence. Are you aware of any evidence that it did NOT happen?

 

[whatbogsends]

Complete and utter supposition.

Not at all. He said his now quoted ad naseum "no quid pro quo" after the investigation started. It's just like his "No obstruction, no collusion" refrain. It's certainly not evidence of no quid pro quo, despite his supporters insistence.

 

[whatbogsends]

Even if there was quid pro quo it's not a violation of law at this point because no one has been able to prove the president personally got anything of value.

He attempted to get something he perceived as "of value", which was the appearance of corruption of a political rival (hence, Trump wasn't as concerned about the actual investigation so much as Zelinsky's announcement of the investigation). That the plot unraveled before it came to fruition doesn't make it ok, just as botched burglaries or failed murder attempts are still crimes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even if there was quid pro quo it's not a violation of law at this point because no one has been able to prove the president personally got anything of value.

That's like saying "attempted murder isn't really a crime because nobody got killed".

 

[Aldebaran]

That's like saying "attempted murder isn't really a crime because nobody got killed".

Or better yet, it's like saying, "Murder isn't proven if you don't even have a dead body, and the person who was supposedly murdered is standing right there saying, 'I'm right here, I'm not dead!'"

 

[GodLovesCats]

Or better yet, it's like saying, "Murder isn't proven if you don't even have a dead body, and the person who was supposedly murdered is standing right there saying, 'I'm right here, I'm not dead!'"

Attempted murder can be proven. The defendent can deny he tried to kill someone all he wants, but proof he shot the victim will be found. Democrats have proof Donald Trump did what he is accused of doing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Attempted murder can be proven. The defendent can deny he tried to kill someone all he wants, but proof he shot the victim will be found. Democrats have proof Donald Trump did what he is accused of doing.

Those who have a bias toward coming to a particular conclusion are most likely to come to that conclusion based on whatever "evidence" they themselves deem sufficient, especially if they themselves are the ones making the accusations.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Those who have a bias toward coming to a particular conclusion are most likely to come to that conclusion based on whatever "evidence" they themselves deem sufficient, especially if they themselves are the ones making the accusations.

That goes both ways. If Republicans find sufficient evidence that Democrats don't who do you think would be the biased party?

 

[Aldebaran]

That goes both ways. If Republicans find sufficient evidence that Democrats don't who do you think would be the biased party?

Yes, that's a fair statement. That's why we need to be more objective when it comes to finding the actual truth about matters.

 

[KCfromNC]

Those who have a bias toward coming to a particular conclusion are most likely to come to that conclusion based on whatever "evidence" they themselves deem sufficient, especially if they themselves are the ones making the accusations.

Hey look, an attempt to avoid discussing the evidence by talking about an implied (fabricated?) failing in other people. That's a pretty good sign that the evidence itself doesn't show the accused in a particularly flattering light.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, that's a fair statement. That's why we need to be more objective when it comes to finding the actual truth about matters.

The GOP members of the committee had just as much time as the majority to question witnesses and establish a "more objective" view of the truth.

Instead, they avoided those facts and instead wasted their time spouting Russian propaganda.

Tells me all I need to know about which side is being objective.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hey look, an attempt to avoid discussing the evidence by talking about an implied (fabricated?) failing in other people. That's a pretty good sign that the evidence itself doesn't show the accused in a particularly flattering light.

Accusations are never meant to show someone in a favorable light.

 

[Aldebaran]

The GOP members of the committee had just as much time as the majority to question witnesses and establish a "more objective" view of the truth.

Instead, they avoided those facts and instead wasted their time spouting Russian propaganda.

Tells me all I need to know about which side is being objective.

Did they get to call in the witnesses they wanted to testify?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Did they get to call in the witnesses they wanted to testify?

Trump blocked several witnesses from testifying. That is a well-known fact. Democrats subpoenaed them. So there is no reason to blame Adam Schiff for only one self-identified Republican testifying under oath in the last two weeks. Sondland did so against Trump's orders to ignore his subpoena.