Serious questions for Trump supporters regarding this impeachment thing

[Jitss617]

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

Are you still trying to save Biden’s ass lol to. Funny

 

[Andylusion]

Are you such a pathetic lemming, that you can't think for yourself? No wonder the left-wing wants to control the media... because apparently all left-wingers are mindless robots.

Really? Someone said it, and so you personally no longer need the mental capacity to think for yourself, and look at the evidence on your own, and determine if there was anything actually wrong? You just hear someone say "Trump Bad" and you mindlessly parrot it like a good little pawn of the establishment?

At least this explains how you guys can run around screaming about the evil rich, while endlessly support the elite rich in our society.

No, I don't give a crap about any of that, because you people lie too much. I read the transcript of the phone call myself. There was nothing in there that was illegal. Nothing.

Maybe you are not man enough to think for yourself, but I am. There was no quid pro quo. He did not say "Until you investigate Biden, I'm not giving you the cash". The entire phone call was about corruption generally, and the only one single sentence in the entire transcript had anything to do with Biden, and it only said that it looked terrible, that Biden openly boasted that he specifically told them to fire a prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company where Biden's son worked at, and that Biden would specifically withhold funds, unless they fired him. They fired him. He released the funds.

Biden directly engaged in quid pro quo. So you are accusing Trump of doing exactly what Biden directly and specifically did. Difference being that Volodymyr Zelensky said he would not open an investigation into Biden, and didn't. And Trump released the funds.

Biden got the prosecutor fired. And did not release the funds, and said he wouldn't, until after the prosecutor was fired. He was. Biden did.

This phone call proves only that Democrats, as per usual, have a double standard. Quid pro quo with Biden... perfectly fine. No quid pro quo, but accusation of quid pro quo with Trump... that's bad.

This entire thing, just makes left-wingers look like the terrible useless trash they are.

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Because it does not matter who says what.

First, people being on Fox News, does not make them "right-wing". My own mother, was on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos. She is not left-wing. Being on a news channel, doesn't magically change your political views.

Being judge doesn't mean you are divine truth. Are you saying that no judge ever made an incorrect judgement? Then why do left-wingers complain about the prison population?

Again, where is the evidence of a crime? The standard is, quid pro quo. If you don't do this, then I won't do that. If you do this, then I'll do that. If you investigate Biden, then I'll give you money. If you don't, then I won't.

Under that standard, nothing of the sort happened.

I’m not calling Napolitano right wing just because he was on fox. I’m calling him right wing because of his long history as a judge and then political analyst.

We all heard the conversation between trump and Ukraine. Discussing millions in military aid that Trump has frozen followed by two favors both very political in nature is what trump is accused of doing that violates 52 US code 30121. That’s the debate. I don’t expect you to agree that trump broke the law. I see you as the type that would excuse him if he shot somebody in the middle of 5th ave. But you’re not going to be able to win a debate of the subject. Something improper is there. We all know it

BS. Nope. There was no political favor. Period. There was ZERO political favor.

We know exactly why the funds were frozen, and it is the same reason prior administrations have had misgivings dealing with the Ukraine. Corruption. We've been talking about the corruption in the Ukraine for a decade. It didn't start with Trump, or even Obama.

That's why we have been pushing on them to deal with corruption for years.

That's why the majority of entire phone conversation was about corruption. There is no evidence that the reason for the holding the funds was about Biden. If you have such evidence, then provide it.

But saying that you know that was the primary purpose of this, when there is zero evidence supporting such a claim, other than a single off the cuff remark that it looks terrible... WHICH IS DOES look bad that Biden unilaterally got a prosecutor fired, with a clear quid pro quo statement.... that's not enough to convince any decent person that Trump was doing this whole thing just to nail Biden. Sorry. It isn't.

You can keep saying wrong things, but you are still wrong on this.

It was absolutely political. It’s obvious. The entire Biden situation is being politicized as we speak. Trump is falsely distorting that situation to make it look like there’s a crime when the evidence is of the contrary. In fact there’s been statements by a prosecutor saying that there was no crimes or evidence of crimes by the Bidens. You can’t can’t squirm away from this.

Right... and if the left had not jumped on this, nothing would have ever happened with it. This was a non-story, and would have disappeared.

The left-wing made this a story, by starting talking about impeachment. So we had to look at it. And when we looked at it, we notice in the phone conversation, that Trump referred to Biden saying he told the president of the Ukraine, that if he didn't fire the prosecutor, that they would not get the money.

We looked at it.... and low and behold... Biden said exactly that.

Does it look bad? Yes it most certainly does.

So now we have the left-wing claiming that Trump engaged in a Quid Pro Quo..... when no quid pro quo happened... and ironically over a situation where Biden DID engage in quid pro quo.

Those are the facts. I don't have to "squirm away" from the facts, because those are the facts. Between the two of us, I have the facts on my side. You are the one claiming "no Biden didn't, and Trump did".... when Biden HIMSELF said he did it.



Those are the facts. I am only pointing out, exactly what is documented fact. You are just pointing out what your opinion is of others motivations, which are not factual, or provable.

Go ahead and squirm some more.

 

[Slade3200]

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

Trying to link stuff together by speculation is insufficient. Must have facts and not speculation.

Agreed. What is it you think I’m speculating about?

 

[Slade3200]

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

Mmmmmh. Seems like the guy you are replying too left some very important things out of Turner's statement, ehhh? Kinda like the Fake News Media cutting 500 words out of the transcript when they report on it. That crap's not going to fly in a Senate trial. They either have High Crimes or they have a farce. They will not be able to fool the American People.

Haha haha that was the best statement I’ve read today!! You rag on me for leaving things out and then you talk about the “high crimes” for impeachment.... did you forget something?

High crimes and...

You really gotta look up what hypocrisy means

 

[Slade3200]

Not according to the constitution. The Congress has the power to investigate and decide if a president has acted in a way that violates his oath of office or abuses his power. They vote for impeachment. That’s the legal process. Many feel that trump has abused his power with this Ukraine business so that’s where we are. This is how the system works. I personally think it’s overkill but it certainly isn’t illegal and Trump certainly crossed some lines. No doubt about that.

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

Are you still trying to save Biden’s ass lol to. Funny

Yeah idiot I’m trying to save Joe Biden’s ass... it’s all up to me, I hope I don’t fail, the fate of the world depends on it.

 

[Slade3200]

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Because it does not matter who says what.

First, people being on Fox News, does not make them "right-wing". My own mother, was on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos. She is not left-wing. Being on a news channel, doesn't magically change your political views.

Being judge doesn't mean you are divine truth. Are you saying that no judge ever made an incorrect judgement? Then why do left-wingers complain about the prison population?

Again, where is the evidence of a crime? The standard is, quid pro quo. If you don't do this, then I won't do that. If you do this, then I'll do that. If you investigate Biden, then I'll give you money. If you don't, then I won't.

Under that standard, nothing of the sort happened.

I’m not calling Napolitano right wing just because he was on fox. I’m calling him right wing because of his long history as a judge and then political analyst.

We all heard the conversation between trump and Ukraine. Discussing millions in military aid that Trump has frozen followed by two favors both very political in nature is what trump is accused of doing that violates 52 US code 30121. That’s the debate. I don’t expect you to agree that trump broke the law. I see you as the type that would excuse him if he shot somebody in the middle of 5th ave. But you’re not going to be able to win a debate of the subject. Something improper is there. We all know it

BS. Nope. There was no political favor. Period. There was ZERO political favor.

We know exactly why the funds were frozen, and it is the same reason prior administrations have had misgivings dealing with the Ukraine. Corruption. We've been talking about the corruption in the Ukraine for a decade. It didn't start with Trump, or even Obama.

That's why we have been pushing on them to deal with corruption for years.

That's why the majority of entire phone conversation was about corruption. There is no evidence that the reason for the holding the funds was about Biden. If you have such evidence, then provide it.

But saying that you know that was the primary purpose of this, when there is zero evidence supporting such a claim, other than a single off the cuff remark that it looks terrible... WHICH IS DOES look bad that Biden unilaterally got a prosecutor fired, with a clear quid pro quo statement.... that's not enough to convince any decent person that Trump was doing this whole thing just to nail Biden. Sorry. It isn't.

You can keep saying wrong things, but you are still wrong on this.

It was absolutely political. It’s obvious. The entire Biden situation is being politicized as we speak. Trump is falsely distorting that situation to make it look like there’s a crime when the evidence is of the contrary. In fact there’s been statements by a prosecutor saying that there was no crimes or evidence of crimes by the Bidens. You can’t can’t squirm away from this.

Right... and if the left had not jumped on this, nothing would have ever happened with it. This was a non-story, and would have disappeared.

The left-wing made this a story, by starting talking about impeachment. So we had to look at it. And when we looked at it, we notice in the phone conversation, that Trump referred to Biden saying he told the president of the Ukraine, that if he didn't fire the prosecutor, that they would not get the money.

We looked at it.... and low and behold... Biden said exactly that.

Does it look bad? Yes it most certainly does.

So now we have the left-wing claiming that Trump engaged in a Quid Pro Quo..... when no quid pro quo happened... and ironically over a situation where Biden DID engage in quid pro quo.

Those are the facts. I don't have to "squirm away" from the facts, because those are the facts. Between the two of us, I have the facts on my side. You are the one claiming "no Biden didn't, and Trump did".... when Biden HIMSELF said he did it.



Those are the facts. I am only pointing out, exactly what is documented fact. You are just pointing out what your opinion is of others motivations, which are not factual, or provable.

Go ahead and squirm some more.

Honestly man, I don’t think you’d know reality if it smacked you directly on the forehead. The whistler blower was the catalyst, followed by the DOJ keeping it from Congress, and the spark that lit the fuse was genius Giuliani on Cuomos show when he went off like a lunatic

 

[Third Party]

Wow, look at you getting all triggered! I just pointed out some examples of those on the Right who openly admit they see wrong doing and you go off on me?! I know enough to not expect you to listen to my perspective so I use statements from those on your side of the aisle and you apparently can’t take it.

It’s pretry damn clear what trump was doing on that call. And the fact that you can’t address it and resort to personal attacks and finger pointing at Biden is just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

Not a Republican or rightist but I have some thoughts. First, Joe's tape looks damning but there was a move afoot to get rid of the prosecutor, so Joe used the leverage he had. Not illegal. Second, Trump is supposed to investigate corruption because he is head of the justice department-which is what the transcript shows him doing. Not illegal. Both men are innocent of any crime and should not be pestered by the press. The biggest problem I have is the language Trump uses to push his position-it is too rough and non-specific.

The problem I see is that Trump had access to tools that were both legal and above board for investigating corruption (such as the DOJ) but he didn’t use them. Instead he used his personal lawyer.

That, in my opinion, does not look good.

You may be right, we will find out.

Trump is different, and that's why people voted him into power. The main thing is that if no Quid pro quo was involved, then his methods aren't impeachable nor criminal, just different.

What do you mean he is “different”? He is NOT above the law.

That's the issue-legality

 

[Mac1958]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

You guys aren't fooling anyone. You have been trying to overturn the election since his victory was declared, we WANT the nation to understand you folks better, and this will result in a huge tune-in and when they see you are trying to impeach the President because you do not accept the decision of the US Electorate, it's clear who you are really attacking, The American People.

Trump tricked Not So Swift Schiff, by releasing the transcripts, the IG report and the Whistle Blower complaints, so fast, and redaction free, that hapless Democrats were still demanding their release after thy had already been released and Democrat claims about them fully debunked.

At first, some Democrats claimed that the transcript was faked. It wasn’t. Two CIA employees detailed to the White House made the transcription. Others claimed the ellipses in the transcript revealed hidden redactions. Actually, they simply signified a pause by the speaker. Interestingly, sometime between May 2018 and August of this year, the form for filing a whistleblower report was changed substantially with little if any notice. As of May 24, 2018 the relevant Form (IC IG ICWPA FORM 401) required the report involve “urgent concerns,” be about an “intelligence activity,” be “reliable first-hand knowledge” and not be “second-hand knowledge.” You think that sells as coincidence?

This complaint merely repeats second-hand knowledge. It is utterly false about the nature of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, and reflects, instead of wrongdoing by the President, that there are some in the bowels of the government who have policy differences with him and wish to wound him. That will become more and more undeniable.

The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: “I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials,” “officials have informed me,” “officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me,” “the White House officials who told me this information,” “I was told by White House officials,” “the officials I spoke with,” “I was told that a State Department official”

It's not First hand information, it's hearsay garbage.

The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the allegations.

“I was not a direct witness to most of the events” characterized in the document, the complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the opportunity to question his accusers.

While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made.

The complainant lies, claiming that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen.

Additionally, the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant’s submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late Wednesday evening.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/adam_schiffs_impeachment_fun_playhouse.html

"You guys"?

You're welcome to post any examples of my pushing any of the Russia or Ukraine accusations.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

You mean like the

• $145,000,000 the Clinton "Foundation" secured by selling our uranium to the Russians, or
• $600,000 annual benefits Biden's son secured from the Ukrainian gas company, or
• $1.5B Kerry and the Bidens secured from the ChiComs?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

You mean like the

• $145,000,000 the Clinton "Foundation" secured by selling our uranium to the Russians, or
• $600,000 annual benefits Biden's son secured from the Ukrainian gas company, or
• $1.5B Kerry and the Bidens secured from the ChiComs?

Why did the Clinton Foundation have control of our uranium? That seems a bit odd.

 

[sparky]

cranium ......it wuz a typo Gator

~S~

 

[Denizen]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

Donald Trump doesn't want his outermost layer of dirt scraped to expose the other layers of dirt underneath.

There is no doubt than any inquiry into Donald Trump will expose fresh dirt.

 

[iceberg]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

Donald Trump doesn't want his outermost layer of dirt scraped to expose the other layers of dirt underneath.

There is no doubt than any inquiry into Donald Trump will expose fresh dirt.

ok - raise your hand if you WANT people digging layers off your personal "walls" for the express purpose of finding bad things about you to tell the world.

what? no hands up?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

You mean like the

• $145,000,000 the Clinton "Foundation" secured by selling our uranium to the Russians, or
• $600,000 annual benefits Biden's son secured from the Ukrainian gas company, or
• $1.5B Kerry and the Bidens secured from the ChiComs?

Why did the Clinton Foundation have control of our uranium? That seems a bit odd.

SecState Hillary wanted $150,000,000 for not quashing the deal, so Putin donated $145,000,000 to her "Foundation" and also gave her a $5,000,000 Bitcoin wallet

 

[Jitss617]

So which line did he cross? Impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political process.

Yes agreed. Those who want him impeached think he abused the power of his office when he leveraged military aid to solicit an investigation into Biden. Others thought the muller report had enough obstruction to justify impeachment.

He never leveraged military aid. Again, point this out to me in the transcript. Biden threatened aid, not Trump. Perhaps the problem is you are confusing the two events.

Biden threatened a loan to push an agenda sanctioned by our government and our allies. That’s a whole different bowl of potatoes. Trump leveraged the aid by freezing it, against the will of congress, then while discussing it with the leader of Ukraine he asked for a favor which involved personal business to help his campaign. Don’t play dumb Ray. It’s clear as day. Go read the transcript

Are you still trying to save Biden’s ass lol to. Funny

Yeah idiot I’m trying to save Joe Biden’s ass... it’s all up to me, I hope I don’t fail, the fate of the world depends on it.

Your doing a good job. Lol I guess you hate your tax money.. do you even believe I have a right to money I earn?

 

[G.T.]

Hey Tardy fucks, you're gonna lose Big next November and I got my bucket ready. You communists are sick and the rest of us are sick of you. Time to die assholes.

Lol bucket?

Die?

You need a Nap, Earl.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

You mean like the

• $145,000,000 the Clinton "Foundation" secured by selling our uranium to the Russians, or
• $600,000 annual benefits Biden's son secured from the Ukrainian gas company, or
• $1.5B Kerry and the Bidens secured from the ChiComs?

Why did the Clinton Foundation have control of our uranium? That seems a bit odd.

SecState Hillary wanted $150,000,000 for not quashing the deal, so Putin donated $145,000,000 to her "Foundation" and also gave her a $5,000,000 Bitcoin wallet

SecState Hillary did not have the power to quash the deal, she was just one of a dozen votes, none of which had the power to stop the deal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well that’s the debate now isnt it? You have Republican congressmen stating it was wrong. You have a judge on Fox News plainly saying trump broke the law. So yeah, there is a valid debate to be had.

There is no valid debate because words mean things. There has been anti-Trump people on the right since he ran for the nomination. That's not likely to change. So you can't use "some Republicans" to support your point.

What about republicans that support trump? Why would they speak out against this?

Such as????

Ohio Rep Mike Turner... been a trump supporter but spoke the truth about this situation. What’s his motivation?

"I've read the complaint and I've read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the Ukraine," Turner said. "Concerning that conversation, I want to say to the president: This is not OK. That conversation is not OK."

"I think it's disappointing to the American public when they read the transcript," he continued.

Okay, I looked him up, and he did say that. But what he also said is he's totally against impeachment. He went on further to call an impeachment an assault of the electorate.

So basically what he said is he didn't like Trump's wording, but doesn't find any impeachable act in Trump's comments.

The impeachment of Pres. Bill Clinton was an assault on the electorate. It had zero to do with anything he did to harm our nation; Trump's pending impeachment is based on his total disregard for the oath of office, our Constitution, his divisive and virulent attacks on other human beings, obstruction of justice and profiting from the office.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Failed impeachment shows everyone the democrats are ONLY concerned with POLITICAL POWER. Nothing is even second

Impeachment is assured. Conviction is problematic - as everyone knows Moscow Mitch and his band of dirt bags put their jobs first, their party second and securing "donations" from the special interests third. They got theirs, and fuck the rest of us.

You mean like the

• $145,000,000 the Clinton "Foundation" secured by selling our uranium to the Russians, or
• $600,000 annual benefits Biden's son secured from the Ukrainian gas company, or
• $1.5B Kerry and the Bidens secured from the ChiComs?

BP#1: Prove it!

BP#2: Prove it!

BP#3: Prove it!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

Donald Trump doesn't want his outermost layer of dirt scraped to expose the other layers of dirt underneath.

There is no doubt than any inquiry into Donald Trump will expose fresh dirt.

ok - raise your hand if you WANT people digging layers off your personal "walls" for the express purpose of finding bad things about you to tell the world.

what? no hands up?

My hand is raised. And I imagine many American's like me have no fear about being vetted. Clearly, DJT's hand remains in some else's pocket.