Perfectly fine. I'm just giving my opinion on polls and interpretation of them. @TheresTheDagger have posted a few recently related to impeachment. The previous one I recall is that independent has swung 10 points of so toward not supporting impeachment. I didn't care to reply to that but I knew that poll has a +/-6 error (based on a very small sample size of 238 or so, if I recall correctly, independent) and when you combined poll to poll (from the same pollster), it's up to 12 pts error. I also have seen up to 25 pts! swing since impeachment started among independent - which cannot be explained easily. Anyhow, that Hill's reporting on a large swing of independent was catchy (sensational) but pretty meaningless and premature at that time. The poll is valid of itself, but just as a single poll at the moment it took combined with the error of margin and history of independent polled is together premature and not very meaningful.... but I'm sure it caught eyes
First, as was pointed out in the inquiry, Sondland's statement was purely his own presumption, and is therefore basically nothing. Certainly not 'evidence', much less 'proof'. Further, AGAIN, quid pro quo requires identification of MOTIVE. Sondland said nothing about that. AGAIN, nobody in the inquiry did. It is completely unaddressed. Given all the corruption present in Ukraine, circumstantial at best. Yes, I do remember, and will point out the EXTREME hyprocrisy of the Dems even beginning to be upset about what Trump did here, given all that they did to Trump, that falls into the EXACT SAME CATEGORY...only much worse. Nothing to refute, as motive was never even discussed. Sondland's testimony was already THOROUGHLY refuted: it was merely his presumption, which means nothing. , Yes, indeed, do ask yourself about precedent. Is the precedent you want set to be 'I really don't like the current POTUS, let's get rid of him based upon hearsay with no sound evidence of anything. In fact, let's plot and plan throughout his term on doing just that'? In short, I'm not sure precedent is the issue anyone supporting the inquiry wants to bring up. It will surely bite them hard later. Which is way there are now Democrats that are concerned about the inquiry (well, that and politics, which is all that is driving this to start with). [ Agree!!! What I don't think you understand, though, is that following the rule of law is where the Democrats have been lacking here (see video link above). If you want to follow the rule of law here, the very first thing you'd need to do is ESTABLISH motive. That, as I have said repeatedly, hasn't even been addressed. Given that, this movie scene is appropriate. If following the rule of law is the standard, this entire inquiry has been sorely lacking. Which, again, is why many Democrats are seriously considering not supporting it. Further, the hypocrisy here is beyond the pale. How, for example, is investigating Trump during the election (and throughout his tenure), when it was demonstrated he had nothing to do with any collusion with Russia, OK, but yet Trump doing this here, when no one disputes what the Bidens actually did, is suddenly so terrible? As per usual, basically this boils down to 'oh, well its totally ok when WE do it, but man, its just terrible when you do it'. Hardly a convincing legal argument. If you want to try to go down the 'but those are two different things' path...yes, they are! What the Dems did is far far far far far worse. That path just confirms my point, many times over.
Yea, again, you are living in a fantasy world of propaganda nonsense. If it so difficult for you, then let’s just make it simple. Forget quid pro quo or any of that. It is illegal for the President to halt congressional approved spend, for any reason. That is impeachable.
Establish motive.... you mean a smoking gun where Trump himself admits the quid pro quo? Why do you think Mulvaney and Pompeo are refusing to testify? Your side impeached Bill Clinton over perjury in regards to an extramarital affair because they couldn’t get anything else on him.... This is your sides MO. Unlike perjury for a blowjob.... this is about Nixon level abuse of power
Well, it's very consistent now. There's not much wondering to be done. There's a significant part of the GOP, seemingly the mainstream GOP, that will take any information or misinformation, from sources at home or cooked up abroad, to advance their battle against their foes, the democrats. Unintended consequences or aiding a hostile foreign power in eroding public confidence in facts or aiding a hostile foreign power in weakening our sense of unity? Well, that's just going to have to be the cost of doing business to stay in power and thwart the evil democrats. Amazing, but there's so much evidence now that I don't see anything left to debate. It's where we are.
"Breitbart has clearly identified Ukraine as the source of 2016 election hacking and we must follow up on this information to secure American democracy."
Well no ****... Impeachment is a political process. Your GOP tried to impeach Clinton over perjury in regards to an extramarital affair after they couldn’t get him on the Whitewater scandal...
Hey man, your guys could testify. Just go before Congress under oath and explain how it's legal to detain Congressional funding and what National purpose was being served. Simple.
