Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Oh, cool.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics ... index.html

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, cool.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics ... index.html

Ah, yes. November was only, what, three months ago? That’s practically geological time in Trump’s world of lies.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

It is impeachable however. If a Mayor fires a policeman for giving him a speeding ticket, people like you would be all about "that's perfectly legal" so long as the Mayor was Republican.

Yes, but you guys have already argued that"anything" is impeachable ( ehem, canpakes' high misdemeanors )

and i have no idea how your speeding ticket story equates. Try for an analogy that is actually analogous.

[_canpakes]

It is impeachable however. If a Mayor fires a policeman for giving him a speeding ticket, people like you would be all about "that's perfectly legal" so long as the Mayor was Republican.

Yes, but you guys have already argued that"anything" is impeachable ( ehem, canpakes' high misdemeanors )

Hey, old fella. Grab your glasses, go back, and reread. You got it wrong, again.
: D

(1) high crimes and (2) misdemeanors.

... and with ‘misdemeanors’ as defined at the time of the original document’s creation.

I fixed your text above, seeing as that you haven’t been accurate in what you claim was discussed. You were wrong then, and trying to misrepresent the actual exchange won’t change that. Nice try, though.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

high misdemeanors

The absolute state of Trump supporters.

Just...

Welp. There you go.

- Doc

[Guest]

It is impeachable however. If a Mayor fires a policeman for giving him a speeding ticket, people like you would be all about "that's perfectly legal" so long as the Mayor was Republican.

Yes, but you guys have already argued that"anything" is impeachable ( ehem, canpakes' high misdemeanors )

and i have no idea how your speeding ticket story equates. Try for an analogy that is actually analogous.

Then you're just dumb. No one has ever argued impeachment is ok for "anything." Though per Alexander Hamilton, Trump has clearly violated the public trust by using the justice dept to shield himself from the consequences of violating laws while at the same time illicitly using it as an arm of his administration to go after his political enemies. The pardoning of FOX News heroes Dinesh D'Souza and Sheriff Arpaio was just the first sign of his corrupt intents here. Now, in an unprecedented move, he's using Bill Barr to intervene in a federal case for no other reason other than the convicted felon is one of his oldest and closest friends. This is the same Bill Barr who ran to the cameras and immediately lied about what the Mueller Report found and repeated "no collusion" six times because he was nothing more than another "Yes man" of Trump's.

[_Icarus]

Oh, cool.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics ... index.html

Ah, yes. November was only, what, three months ago? That’s practically geological time in Trump’s world of lies.

- Doc

It doesn't seem so long ago that Trump was pitching a fit over his denial that he asked James Comey for absolute loyalty either. At this point, why not just come clean and stop denying it. I'm sure he would if asked, since the Republican Senate has already made it perfectly clear he has carte blanche when it comes to violating the laws of the land.

[_Markk]

Hey, Markk -

Given your inability to answer why Trump did not engage the DoJ in pursuing corruption that you claim he was sure existed because “he was sure that it existed”, then why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same?

After all, there would be no need to ask Zelensky to do anything, either, right?

We can keep playing this game, fine, but the reality is you just don't like my answer...but keep asking , hopefully sooner or later you will answer a question of mine.

OK. So you can’t answer this one, either.

But you want me to answer your list of questions. ; )

I think you’re asking me if I believe that we need to ‘assume corruption and investigate’ folks for merely being related to other folks that engaged in common and legitimate business activities, if same are politically aligned in a manner that you don’t like. The answer to that would be, ‘No’.

Now, wanna take a crack at my two questions, considering that your question - which was your distraction thrown up so that you could avoid answering mine - is now addressed?

You keep telling folks to focus; you might heed that advice yourself.

Why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same, given your response to the question put to you about why Trump did not engage our own DoJ?

By your ducking my questions just shows you can't answer them. I am just making a point, I don't really expect answers from most of you guys, that is why I refer to you as clones often. You are incapable of objective conversation. By your not being able to answer questions simple shows this.

Why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same, given your response to the question put to you about why Trump did not engage our own DoJ?

Trump wanted help from a person that might be able to give information of where our taxpayer monies might be going and mishandled, it is not rocket science. I am not sure what "public statement " you are talking about, and if you can give me a link, so I understand the context of what you are asking, I will certainly answer your question. As to "why he did not engage the DoJ" is just a dumb question, you guys can't even agree there is a concrete answer to, or expound in any way, on anything other than identity politics.

Trump asked Z. to give "us" information on the possibility that a sitting VP, who was in charge of rooting out corruption, was actually corrupt, based on many of the the evidences, and more that I have laid out here, that you duck and probably haven't even read. Like, why was the VP's son working for a known gangster/mobster, and corrupt goverment official that was funneling millions from his own goverment, which much of which was foreign aid, all the while the VP was in charge of giving out the much of that foreign aid.

If you don't understand that fine, I understand you might not be able to, for obvious reasons, but it is a real answer to the question posed, whether you like it or not, or whether you are capable to understand how someone might see a VP sons working for a corrupt goverment officail who is stealing money that the VP is handing out, as troubling.

[_EAllusion]

he's using Bill Barr to intervene in a federal case for no other reason other than the convicted felon is one of his oldest and closest friends.

Oh, I don't think that's true. That case implicates Trump's own illicit behavior directly. He's moving to protect a member of his criminal syndicate.

[_EAllusion]

Trump wanted help from a person that might be able to give information of where our taxpayer monies might be going and mishandled, it is not rocket science. I am not sure what "public statement " you are talking about, and if you can give me a link, so I understand the context of what you are asking, I will certainly answer your question.

Sweet lord.