Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

[KCfromNC]

Last I seen national numbers were worse than state by state numbers, it seems that most of the battleground states are against impeachment.

By the numbers: In a dozen October and November polls on impeachment in battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin, an average of 44% of those surveyed supported impeachment, with 51% opposed, according to the Post.

More evidence that the claim I was responding to - that no one cares about impeachment - doesn't line up with reality.

 

[HannahT]

Did Trump have to wait until the Democratic primary debates to have Biden investigated and influence the 2020 election or could he have done that at any point after taking office?

Are you saying Biden is above being investigated? Remember the talking point about how no one is above the law.

People claiming that politicians never do anything EVER to influence elections are extremely naive. They do it constantly. Their speeches during hearings are used for soundbites for ads. Their constant repeating of the approved talking points are as well. Their problem at times is more when their opposing candidate uses the sound bites against them.

Impeachment is being used to influence the election. This isn't rocket science here. lol The entire Russia ordeal was going to be used, and no doubt will come up too. Yet, there isn't much to uncover anymore. Yet, they will tell you there is - they need this, that and the other. You don't think that will be used to influence?

Everything is political nowadays. Majority of politicians - IMO - are slimeballs. They need to stay in their jobs so they can retire millionaires. Money influences their decisions all the time.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Are you saying Biden is above being investigated? Remember the talking point about how no one is above the law.

People claiming that politicians never do anything EVER to influence elections are extremely naive. They do it constantly. Their speeches during hearings are used for soundbites for ads. Their constant repeating of the approved talking points are as well. Their problem at times is more when their opposing candidate uses the sound bites against them.

Impeachment is being used to influence the election. This isn't rocket science here. lol The entire Russia ordeal was going to be used, and no doubt will come up too. Yet, there isn't much to uncover anymore. Yet, they will tell you there is - they need this, that and the other. You don't think that will be used to influence?

Everything is political nowadays. Majority of politicians - IMO - are slimeballs. They need to stay in their jobs so they can retire millionaires. Money influences their decisions all the time.

Biden is absolutely fair game to be investigated. I just want to know why Democrats are being accused of impeaching now being used to influence the 2020 election but Trump waiting until the Democratic debates to get under way to investigate Biden isn’t trying to influence the 2020 election. Trump is even more questionable because he had two more years to investigate Biden than the Democrats has to impeach Trump.

 

[Aldebaran]

Did Trump have to wait until the Democratic primary debates to have Biden investigated and influence the 2020 election or could he have done that at any point after taking office?

What does that have to do with what we were discussing. You brought up Wisconsin issues, and now you're changing it again to talk about Trump. At least pick which topic you want to discuss and we'll go from there.

 

[Aldebaran]

Biden is absolutely fair game to be investigated. I just want to know why Democrats are being accused of impeaching now being used to influence the 2020 election but Trump waiting until the Democratic debates to get under way to investigate Biden isn’t trying to influence the 2020 election. Trump is even more questionable because he had two more years to investigate Biden than the Democrats has to impeach Trump.

And yet the democrats had already decided from even before Trump was sworn into office that he needed to be impeached. They just didn't have as many leftist extremists in place at the time to cancel out the results of the 2016 election, so now they're targeting the 2020 election.

 

[wing2000]

There would be no impeachment without the whistleblower's report.

 

[Aldebaran]

There would be no impeachment without the whistleblower's report.

Which sounds like a pretty solid argument for why the whistleblower should testify.

 

[wing2000]

Which sounds like a pretty solid argument for why the whistleblower should testify.

Why? You can read the report.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you saying Biden is above being investigated?

I don't think anyone is. Then again, if there was really an actual reason to one has to wonder why Donald has been so reluctant to actually do so. I mean sure, he was really excited to get a foreign government to announce an investigation - just in time to line up with him launching a bunch of attack ads on Biden. But as for an actual investigation, so far, nothing.

Kinda strange.

People claiming that politicians never do anything EVER to influence elections are extremely naive.

Which people are claiming that?

 

[KCfromNC]

And yet the democrats had already decided from even before Trump was sworn into office that he needed to be impeached.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”

 

[HannahT]

I don't think anyone is. Then again, if there was really an actual reason to one has to wonder why Donald has been so reluctant to actually do so. I mean sure, he was really excited to get a foreign government to announce an investigation - just in time to line up with him launching a bunch of attack ads on Biden. But as for an actual investigation, so far, nothing.

Kinda strange.

Well, people can throw out the - if there is nothing hide? He has nothing to worry about then. Right?

According to the talking points used he asked for an investigation into Biden during the call. We don't know if there was investigating on our end or not. For all we know they were. They didn't go into that in the hearings from what I remember.

The country was corrupt, and I do hope this new leader helps his country better than the past ones. Corruption isn't that easy to get rid of. Our poor neighbor Mexico is owned by their cartels and corruption, and have been for years and years. Their new President there can't just snap his fingers and its gone there either.

He also mentioned that the country may have information regarding what happened during his Presidential campaign - which they have been investigating. Sounds like they still are.

Attack ads are the norm for politics. So many are disingenuous, and they don't always just come from one side. If the roles were reversed the other side would be playing ads too.

Which people are claiming that?

I was addressing a concern brought up, and if you read the post again in context? YOu can answer that all by yourself. lol!

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, people can throw out the - if there is nothing hide? He has nothing to worry about then. Right?

Who has nothing to worry about?

According to the talking points used he asked for an investigation into Biden during the call. We don't know if there was investigating on our end or not. For all we know they were. They didn't go into that in the hearings from what I remember.

I'm just going by the fact so far. I mean, it isn't as if Donald was shy about wanting a non-investigation to be announced as an investigation. It kinda stretches credulity to think he'd simultaneously want a real investigation to not be announced as far and wide.

The country was corrupt

Which is totally irrelevant to Donald trying to trade aid for that country announcing an investigation into one of Donald's domestic political rivals.

He also mentioned that the country may have information regarding what happened during his Presidential campaign

Parroting Russian propaganda, while troubling for a sitting US President, isn't one of the things he was impeached for, so I don't see the relevance here either.

Attack ads are the norm for politics.

But conditioning foreign aid on foreign leaders participating in those ads is not. So again, relevance?

I was addressing a concern brought up, and if you read the post again in context? YOu can answer that all by yourself.

If you can't explain who you were talking about, not sure why anyone else would be able to guess.

 

[Aldebaran]

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”

Was that an attempt at a whataboutism? It wasn't even very good, nor does it address the fact that the dems had their minds made up to impeach Trump from the start. So much for the "fair hearings" and that "fair trial" they keep talking about.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why? You can read the report.

Does that reasoning also apply to the witnesses the dems want to testify, and is worth delaying the process for?

 

[Gigimo]

Does that reasoning also apply to the witnesses the dems want to testify, and is worth delaying the process for?

I'm curious as to what the Dems think they're going to hear from those folks?

Besides it's not the Senates job to call more witnesses to help the Dems prove their case, that was the Dems job during their hearings and they failed miserably at that.

 

[Vylo]

Quite easily! By first claiming over and over again that it must be done, and must be done right now in order to not allow the next election to be influenced while at the same time not allowing the voters to make their own decisions ('cuz that'd be dangerous!), and then not even allowing it to go to the Senate because, well, the case doesn't look at strong as it once seemed to.
Oh, and then try convincing the public that we need to go through this all over again before the first process is even completed. That's how you cheapen the impeachment process.

It isn't that the case isn't strong, it is that McConnell has flat out said he won't let there be a fair trial. Would you let a murder case go to trial if the only foreman you could choose was shouting publicly that he would acquit no matter what?

 

[KCfromNC]

Was that an attempt at a whataboutism?

No, it as an example of Donald asking for a foreign power to interfere in the election before he was president. It was an explanation of why some people might have thought that Donald should have been investigated at that point, in response to your seeming wonder at why they would do so.

 

[Bobber]

It isn't that the case isn't strong, it is that McConnell has flat out said he won't let there be a fair trial.

Yes it is or Schumer wouldn't be asking for additional witnesses!

 

[Bobber]

No, it as an example of Donald asking for a foreign power to interfere in the election before he was president. It was an explanation of why some people might have thought that Donald should have been investigated at that point, in response to your seeming wonder at why they would do so.

Nice try. But the substance of the call doesn't bear that out not in any absolute sense of the word.

 

[HannahT]

It isn't that the case isn't strong, it is that McConnell has flat out said he won't let there be a fair trial. Would you let a murder case go to trial if the only foreman you could choose was shouting publicly that he would acquit no matter what?

McConnell said he wanted to run it like Clinton's impeachment was. How was his impeachment unfair?

What part of the case is strong then?

Schumer told reporters in New York on Sunday that “the Senate is yearning to give President Trump due process, which means that documents and witnesses should come forward. What is a trial with no witnesses and no documents. It’s a sham trial.”

Those items were suppose to materialize prior to trial, and they didn't. So, they are demanding them for trial despite their indisputable facts/proof? That doesn't make it sound like their case is all that strong. What is at issue as well is their 'indisputable' stuff that isn't all that indisputable.

When you go to trial you are suppose to have your ducks in a row. You don't go to trial and demand the person you are accusing provide alleged evidence to prove your case for you, because you didn't want to put forth the effort to do it yourself. Using your murder trial example? It's like telling the judge we have indisputable proof Jack murdered Jill. Yet, we don't have the documentation or witnesses to backup our disreputable proof and we demand that Jack's lawyers hand it over now so we can proceed with our case. The judge would ask WHY this wasn't handled prior to trial, and the prosecution says, "This is a matter of urgency your Honor! He is a danger to society, and using the legal avenues to get them would take to long!"

You go to trial to present your case - both sides. You handle the legal maneuvers to get your witnesses, documentation, etc prior to trial.

This is why this whole thing is confusing to people. If it is all that indisputable? You don't need anything else, and the delay and demands make it sound like it isn't all that indisputable afterall.