Why don’t we ask Amerigo Vespucci who discovered that “America” is a separate land mass from Asia around the year 1,500 AD
Ambassador to Ukraine, Wm. Tayor, a non-partisan military hero chosen by Trump, appears deeply credible for 6 hours today. And so far, his timeline & events agree with all other distinguished witnesses. So if Trump disputes any such testimony, I’d think he’d release his own team of eye-witnesses to counter it (inc. Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani), and the documents of today’s witnesses.
Observing the GOP offer little dispute of any basic facts by such dedicated citizens, it again seems to me that the partisan divide is really only on whether such undisputed events are considered acceptable or impeachable.
A slight distinction about a mile wide is unacceptable behavior but not impeachable. We don’t have an actual description of what “high crimes” are but that terminology was used prior to the Constitution. At the risk of repeating myself, nothing actually happened. That’s the GOP position , that nothing actually happened, which today did not change that reality.
Thanks for sharing your own perception of today’s witnesses. I agree that an unclear Constitution leaves it to the Senate to decide what kind of seeking one’s own political gain is impeachable.
But if you heard the testimony today as about “nothing that actually happened,” I would think that places you on the side that nothing unacceptable could have happened.
What happened was military aid was delayed 5 weeks after the Dems under Obama delayed military aid 8 years. The aid being delayed 5 weeks was wrong but far from a high crime.
Maybe, thanks. You kindly confirm my conclusion that interpreting how wrong such undisputed events are is what will actually differentiate the parties. I’m more unsure than you as to what qualifies, perceiving like most historians that the Founders intended to let 60% of the Congressional branch decide exactly what kind of offenses to impeach, in order to hold Executive power in check.
I’m inclined to agree with the GOP senator’s I quoted Sunday, who said it would depend on his motive for withholding crucial military aid. I do think seeking to trade such vital foreign aid funds to preserve one’s own political power would be much closer to what concerned the Founders than someone lying about an immoral affair that had nothing to do with gaining presidential power.
P.S. We should admit a few exceptions like Dave will still insist that it was not even “wrong.”
There was even less ‘evidence’ than we thought - like, 0.
Why still be a Democrat?? Where is the good old liberal party?
GG:
This whole thing is a crappy horror movie scripted by Democrats for the media, with Schiff and his bunch playing the bug-eyed zombies.
But for a horror movie to be good, we have to believe it’s at least possible. And not already know how it’s going to end.
Actually, this is worse than a horror film. It’s porn for Democrats. Remember their safe words?
“This sounds like a quid pro quo directed by the president,” said CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Very clear quid pro quo,” said MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Many other television hosts and guests said the same thing.
No, you dopes. That’s called leverage. Using it on behalf of your country is Trump’s job, especially when he couldn’t trust anyone else to do it. Every day we heard of people trying to stop him, so what do you expect?
@Paidion And how could we have a presidential candidate whose son is beholden to Ukraine and China? If Trump hadn’t investigated, that would have been impeachable.
Trump broke no laws. He may bend the rules a bit, but only because he has to do it, since the media and Democrats write the rulebook.
And Schiff says he does not know who the whistleblower is? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
A lying liar who tells lies - and THAT is who Dems want to run a fake hearing? HHAHAHAHAHAH
I loved the FACT that neither star witness COULD EVEN SAY WHAT IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY COMMITED. They fumbled and hemmed and hawed and looked impressive.
"The old Soviet Union was famous for show trials – fake trials where the result was already understood, where everything was just for show, and where the accused was already certain to be found guilty before the case was even presented.
Ask yourself this: Regardless of the case the Democrats layout against the president, is there any chance at all that the Democratic House will not vote to impeach him? Any chance at all?
The conclusion of the Democratic majority in the House is predetermined and does not rely on – or have any connection to – evidence. In other words, everything you see in Washington for the next two months is merely a show.
Impeachment in this circumstance is a very dangerous action. It is founded on passion, hysteria, and yellow journalism – the very things that concerned our wise founders.
An impeachment by the House on such shoddy grounds would be a dark day indeed. It would create a precedent that opens the door for the political removal of a president, undermining the validity of our elections and subverting the will of the American people." - Jeff Sessions
""They have no… first-hand knowledge of that issue. And so their testimony today is based on fourth or fifth-hand information… that they get garnered mostly through a game of telephone on September 7th, when Ambassador Sondland called Tim Morrison from the National Security Council, who then called Ambassador Taylor, who then called George Kent to relay what they thought Sondland had said.
“What’s so troubling is that the American people, many of whom obviously don’t have time to watch this impeachment hearing, have read in The New York Times, in Politico and heard on CNN that these two witnesses today, Kent and Taylor, have what they call ‘overwhelming evidence’ of president wrongdoing when in fact, they have none,” she concluded." Betsy McCaughey
I could make a laundry list of Obama’s sketchy antics , far worse and far more then Trump but Obama had the MSM in his pocket.
I wonder how the Mullah’s spent the over billion in cash Obama sent in an unmarked plane at night without Congressional knowledge? What would happen if Trump did that?
Did you truly watch all of it? I found both witnesses clear, explicit, and credible for 6 hours.
Again, I find most serious Trump apologists admit the Facts. When you can’t win on substance, you deflect (focus like Steve above on Obama) or whine about the process . At best, you argue Ukraine may have not known early on that Trump was blocking vital defense, and that he later relented.
I.e.in sum, sure! Trump sought to use vital U.S. funds as leverage to shake down Ukraine to boost his political fortunes, but only awhile, and shucks, he stopped anyway when a whistle blower exposed him.
I.e. No denial of the Facts, just differing values on whether Trump clearly doing what he’s accused of actually matters. (Cf. Clinton’s impeachment: Dems knew he lied about his tawdry affair. They just similarly said, So What?)
When I hear that term quid pro quo, I, for some reason, get hungry. Maybe this story I actually experienced has something to do with it.
****************************************
It was just one of many typical faculty dinners with a visiting seminar speaker. This dinner was held at a Thai restaurant. Sitting just to my right was a faculty friend known for his quick wit.
I ordered a spicy calamari dish and he ordered a shrimp dish prepared the same way. Midway through the dinner, my friend, seemingly more interested in my dish than in his, asked, “May I have a piece of your calamari?”
I playfully replied, “Sure, just give me a piece of your shrimp in exchange.”
He quickly answered, “Good. That would be a squid pro quo.”
1 Like
Good one, L!
Get this:
OBAMA made a deal with Ukraine for military aid - IF Burisma was investigated.
Then - Hunter got hired by Burisma - and Obama dropped the requirement.
This is what they are trying to impeach DT for!!! (S)quid pro quo!!
Amazing hypocrisy
@Bob_Wilson @pilgrim
I get me. But why do you suggest pilgrim is a hypocrite?
I was not deflecting but rather giving some context to the yuge double,triple,quadruple standard between how Dems are treated vs Repubs.
Obama did do way beyond anything that Trump may have done yet slithers away unnoticed and unquestioned yet Trump sneezes and he either a racist,treasoness etc.
To you Bob it may seem like deflecting because you are interested in one thing, impeachment of Trump.
1 Like
My posts whole focus has been that most Republicans agree with Democrats on the facts of what happened, but there remains serious differences about whether it’s worthy of being impeached.
But I argued many posters here would rather talk about the grievances with their Dem opponents and past injustices, than face up to the current facts as you in fact have done better than most. But if you in this example would rather focus on the unfairness of not impeaching Obama, I get your angst.
I wouldn’t have impeached Obama as I think that path is dangerous and has unforeseen consequences plus I believe in free elections not hypocritical coups from opponents lusting for power.