It was Nancy Pelosi the Democratic Speaker of the House who said that impeachment is required to be compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan. I agree. Therefore the Dems are in the wrong for proceeding with it without bipartisan support. It is frivolous. It is 100% doomed, the Dems are the big losers and the US people are victims.
Ok so you start off by saying that impeachment is required to be compelling (it is), overwhelming (it is), and bipartisan (it should be). Just because the republicans refuse to do their jobs, does not mean the democrats can refuse to do theirs. So no, it's not wrong for them to do what their own oaths of office require them to do. The use of the word "frivolous" here suggests that you do not know what frivolous means. It means without substance, this has substance from one end to the other. From one end of Trump's entire term in office to the other. A seemingly endless string of evidence supporting
his own statements. It is not "frivolous" to do your job, especially when your job is to serve the American people and uphold the nation's laws.
I ask you again, are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Answer. You posed the question, you
answer the question. Stop dodging. Stop trying to hide behind the notion that bipartisan support is somehow important. Stop trying to use partisan nonsense to obfuscate the simple and obvious truth that is staring you in the face. Answer your question.
The US people are victims, victims of Trump, a crook.
you know you want to say he's not a crook. Do it.
That all said, I disagree there is any compelling and overwhelming evidence of anything impeachable. Any treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors must be established legally and factually. Nothing even close to that has happened, IMO.
Totally circular. You say the only way there could be overwhelming evidence is if it's "legally" established, meaning that he gets removed from office. In other words, the only way there is compelling and overwhelming evidence is if Republicans agree. Are you listening to yourself? You want the very people who are in the pocket of the accused to turn on him, when they clearly depend on him, and if they do not, you do not consider impeachment proper.
Absurd.
He admitted it. You do not deny this. It is bribery, you do not deny this. Bribery is impeachable, you do not deny this. All you have is that some republicans are willing to forsake their duties. That's it! You're defending one person who has forsaken his duty because others did it too. Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
The Dems have been wanting to remove the President since before he was inaugurated.
He was
obstructing an investigation, an investigation that actually turned up insane facts about Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Of
course they've been wanting to remove him since before he was inaugurated, he's been obstructing justice since then.
All they needed was the slightest excuse or opportunity. When the Mueller report and subsequent on-camera interview fizzled, they simply found the next best convenient pretext.
The Mueller report was absolutely brimming with obstruction of justice, and the democrats backed off. Hardly the way you characterize it. They were looking for a smoking gun... the president delivered shortly thereafter (it's just how he is). And even with a smoking gun, people still have their heads deep in the sand.
The judiciary committee, by precedent the scene of impeachment proceedings in the House, barely had the case for one day before Pelosi ordered the articles published. A joke, a kangaroo court, a travesty of justice.
Are you high? Honest question.
Procedurally, this impeachment is without precedent.
It's literally the same charges brought against Nixon and Clinton.
It does not give the appearance of fairness or propriety.
Appearance?
He admitted it
Witnesses are anonymous. 3rd or 2nd hand hearsay is permitted.
Yes, hearsay can be strong evidence. Take a look at that video I posted... no you didn't do me the courtesy.
But
he admitted it. Get that through your head.
Witnesses are not cross examined. Witnesses are not sworn in.
It's not a criminal case. Trump is not being taken to a court. Different branch of government.
The actual recipient of the phone call denies any impropriety occurred.
This happens sometimes. Often in cases of domestic abuse. People get convicted anyway, all the time.
By immediately releasing the transcript of the call, Trump inoculated himself from charges of coverup or obstruction of justice, the principle reason for Nixon's problem.
He tried to bury it in a classified server.
The framers intended impeachment to be bipartisan. Thats why there's a 2/3 standard for conviction in the Senate.
Luckily for Trump, he has the cronies to get him off.
The entire case is so palpably a political vendetta that the Senate may not even hold public deliberations before voting it down. Then the Democrats are going to have to answer to the people.
He's guilty. You can't even begin to deny it. So what do they have to answer for? Doing their jobs, carrying out justice, defending the law. Are we a nation of laws or a nation men? Answer your question.
@Keef Intent cannot be proved.
It's done all the time, the person's own statements and documents are often sufficient, as is the case here.
But I insist he be defeated fair and square at the polls.
Impeachment in this case is not only fair, it's also required of congress.
