Trump knew about the whistleblower complaint before: (a) releasing the aid; and (b) telling Sondland "no quid pro quo." Clearly he was coached on how to approach the situation after being briefed of the complaint. Slam dunk - he abused his power as President in an attempt to further his own political goals. That is 100% an impeachable offense. Does it matter? Will Republicans risk re-election over it? It sure doesn't seem so.
Since trump's "held up aid not as a bribe to get Biden investigated but because of concern about corruption" lie doesn't seem to be sticking anymore, he now tries the "held up aid to get other countries to pay more" defense... conservative Stephen Hayes tries to make sense of this latest (and asks the rhetorical question "If true?")...
....could you imagine how much of a stink the Republicans would have made if Hillary Clinton's State Department or Barack Obama's Justice Department had withheld ANY evidence or documentation or testimony regarding the Benghazi investigations? ...I mean, you ask Trey Gowdy and Rand Paul and whoever else—they had Hillary dead-to-rights on... ...well, SOMETHING... ...ANYTHING... ...all they had to do was show it to the American people... ...and they almost undermined all of that vitriol that had been manufactured over 20 years about her and her husband Bill's child sex slave ring fronted by dirty pizza money and Moloch worshippers, by putting her on the stand to testify for nearly 12 hours and making her appear, for perhaps the only time in her professional political life, a sympathetic figure and a human being unjustly accused, no less... ...I don't know about the rest of you guys... ...but that right there is how you play 4-D chess...!
He already tried this defense a few days after the scandal broke. It didn't catch on. 2nd time is the charm?
Maybe we should make graham happy... toss trump in a lake and see if he floats (if so, he is guilty)...
You don't need to be a former prosecutor, only a first year law student. But that's not the point, Breitbart is wrong for the purpose of being wrong. There is no arguing with that kind of mentality.
That is the greatest post you have ever made in your life. It might be the greatest post in the history of these boards.
the always-entertaining Robert Kaus on the Dems "rushing impeachment" ("The Wham, Bam, Thank You Ma’am Impeachment: Do you think the Democrats need to rush impeachment (as they’re currently doing)? I don't"). But this is really what caught my eye: Democrats are taking what basically should be a very embarrassing front page newspaper story for Trump and working themselves up into thinking it's a"high crime." There was at least enough legitimate cause to investigate the Bidens — what did Joe’s son’s client get for all that money? — to take the case out of the “high crime” category. I think that's about right. more at the link: https://kaus.substack.com/p/rushin-roulette
So after complaining that Trump and the GOP weren't allowed to put forward a defense, Trump is given the opportunity and declines. Why do people buy anything these guys say in their defense. Every defense they put forward just gets wiped out within a week if not the next day.
Typical conservative wordplay misdirect, cutting out a significant portion of that clause to try and generate ridicule from nothing. If it makes you feel better we can stipulate it is not a high crime but only a misdemeanor, so he is exonerated... oh wait... I guess that the impeachment portion of the Constitution says both "other high crimes" and "misdemeanors" are impeachable. Ridiculous attempt to redefine impeachment to a tighter standard invalidated. Carry on.
