Regardless of who is President, I feel you need to have evidence that convinces more than just the opposing party of guilt.
Lindsay Graham already said he won't read the transcripts, has that changed? It seems the GOP aren't "participating" in good faith.... What should we do when a party and their base doesn't care if there's corruption or worse?
Are you trying to convince me of something? I'm merely trying to state the current defense, based up Rep Zeldin's line of questioning. And unless I'm missing someone citing "witness testimony" so far that is first-hand witness to Trump's words and goals of attaching the Quo to the Quid, then the defense will continue saying -- as Zeldin did -- that it's mere speculation tying the two together. And they will say asking Ukraine to release a statement of an invesigation (which we have better 1st-hand info on) is not enough, without tying it to the Quid aid. What I think about this doesn't matter. Like I said, even Nixon had enough support until the day of the Smoking Gun (which were clear words by him of obstruction). I'm sure there is someone who can attest to Trump saying "don't release aid, yet." But will it come out.
I didn't believe that you had fallen in line with Trump defenders. It was just that since your quote mentioned the defense, I was responding.
Yovanovitch communicated with Dem staffer on 'delicate' issue after complaint, emails show, despite testimony https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ma...-emails-house-democrat-staffer-delicate-issue Stone faints.
Is it illegal for a sitting president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent? This is not that hard.
Wrong. Ron Paul was batsh!t nutty but he had ideals, his son is just a craven politician with no backbone.
Zelensky had already agreed to do a CNN interview and make a statement regarding investigating Biden. What halted that was the events surrounding the scandal became public - the WB, the House's decision to move forward with their investigations and that Trump covered his ass by releasing the military aid immediately afterward. If those events haven't happened in that order, Zelensky would made the announcement, then Trump would release aid. His lemonade would have been made without dragging him down. It would seem credible and would be similar and likely as damaging if not more to the wikileak political harms on Clinton. The start of impeachment itself, halting this, helped Biden (even some on the left, who were probably politically concerned about impeachment, believed that Pelosi and the establishment DEM launched impeachment to protect Biden). And I would argue it will help DEM down the road in 2020 if they are willing to fully take advantage of it politically. Trump has a history of making lemonade out of apples. That's something we can all expect to happen and continue to happen throughout 2020. Politically, getting his name tied to those lemonade is a strong defense. So much so that a strategy for the upcoming 2020 negative attack is to simply use a trump tactic on himself - tie it to Trump. True or not, call it a Trump made-up story and the DEM would stay locked step with their candidate. The independent would question the validity of it. The narrative is now already possible thanks to impeachment - Trump is a known pathological liar who reached out to foreign gov to interfere in our election - you cannot trust him and don't believe these attacks, vote out Trump. DEM don't believe in Trump-pushed conspiracy theory. Of all the things that can affect who DEM ended up choosing as their candidate, a Trump-pushed conspiracy theory is way at the bottle of the list. In fact, the opposite has happened among some DEM - to support Biden more. At the end of the day, it's likely a wash. DEM in the house, senate, on the debate stage can throw Biden under the bus at any time independent of impeachment. The Trump-pushed conspiracy theory was going to happen regardless of impeachment and any of them can tag along with that narrative to attack Biden. If not for impeachment itself, once Zelensky made his statement on CNN, it would be much more likely that Biden would be attacked by his DEM political opponents. But since now they all know that Trump was behind the push, they can try if they want, but it would be political suicide.
Hmm... seems you think of impeachment only through partisan glasses... and not as an appropriate step to address illegal and/or corrupt actions by the president of the United States. While I don't, here's evidence that its not just the "opposing party": Independent Justin Amash joins with Democrats to approve impeachment resolution https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/amash-vote-yes-impeachment-resolution/index.html Justin Amash says 'a lot of' Republican lawmakers agree with him that Trump should be impeached but won't say it publicly https://www.businessinsider.com/justin-amash-republicans-agree-impeachment-mueller-report-2019-5 REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT RISES TO 18 PERCENT, POLL SHOWS https://www.newsweek.com/republican-support-trumps-impeachment-rises-18-percent-poll-shows-1469234
Expectations are that trump and his enablers will evolve their defense to "rudy run amuck" but before they throw rudy under the bus...
Is it illegal for a sitting president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival? Simple question.
LOL - she said she didn't email someone back.....ooops.......not exactly perjury material, but keep trying jr. DD
