Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

[Hastur]

If only we could find out what happened. I wonder if someone from the glorious US news media had tried to talk to the prosecutor in question.
Oh wait....

[brewster]

We disagree on that, but agreeing that it's a crime if it happened as described by numerous witnesses is a start in saving the country. Many do not agree that it's a problem even if that were the case. The GOP defense in the house consisted almost entirely of attacking the process rather than substantially defending Trump against the testimony.

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

[pineapplemike]

Unlike lying about having sex with someone not your wife.
Thank heavens Trump would never do such a thing.

wouldnt you say the abuse of the power dynamic between a sitting president and a 20 something year old intern is worse than lying about it*?

*under oath

Is it as impeachable as withholding military aid in return for investigating a political opponent?
I'm not convinced that either is really at the level of an impeachment offense but if a blow job is then bribery sure as hell is.

weird how "blow job" and "bribery" weren't listed in any of the impeachment articles

blow job = perjury, obstruction of justice
bribery = "abuse of power," "obstructing congress"

[pineapplemike]

We disagree on that, but agreeing that it's a crime if it happened as described by numerous witnesses is a start in saving the country. Many do not agree that it's a problem even if that were the case. The GOP defense in the house consisted almost entirely of attacking the process rather than substantially defending Trump against the testimony.

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

so let's lower the standards of protections for US individuals instead of raising the standards of protections for US individuals? weak

[pineapplemike]

The accusation is he withheld congressionally appropriated military aid funds to an ally in a war against one of our foes that has claimed over 10,000 lives, in order to achieve an electoral advantage. If you can't see that as far more of a "high crime and misdemeanor" than lying about sex there's no hope for this republic.

An accusation with no evidence. There is ZERO proof that he did anything to achieve an electoral advantage. The is evidence however that the aid was sent and nothing was given in return that "achieved an electoral advantage".

furthermore, what's the electoral advantage he gets? a day long news story about a foreign government investigating joe biden? as if our honest and noble press would not immeditable bury that story in favor of the latest anonymous leak fed to them by our honest and noble intel agencies

[PartyOf5]

We disagree on that, but agreeing that it's a crime if it happened as described by numerous witnesses is a start in saving the country. Many do not agree that it's a problem even if that were the case. The GOP defense in the house consisted almost entirely of attacking the process rather than substantially defending Trump against the testimony.

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

Name them. Also, please include what the testimony was that sent them to death.

It doesn't matter how decorated they are. They had ZERO facts to provide.

[The Conservative]

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

Name them. Also, please include what the testimony was that sent them to death.

It doesn't matter how decorated they are. They had ZERO facts to provide.

I've been trying to point that out for a while... I've been waiting for a response.

[clubgop]

We disagree on that, but agreeing that it's a crime if it happened as described by numerous witnesses is a start in saving the country. Many do not agree that it's a problem even if that were the case. The GOP defense in the house consisted almost entirely of attacking the process rather than substantially defending Trump against the testimony.

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

Based on direct evidence. They actually pointed a finger and witnessed actual criminal events. These supposed Ambassadors and others just played whisper down the partisan bitch alley. If the hearsay rules were in effect for those hearings those people wouldn't even be allowed to testify in the first place. Partisan hack bitch wants to say this isn't a criminal court thing but then compare it to that process when it's convenient to his bitch narrative.

[The Conservative]

Is a witness really a witness if they never actually witnessed anything?

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

Based on direct evidence. They actually pointed a finger and witnessed actual criminal events. These supposed Ambassadors and others just played whisper down the partisan bitch alley. If the hearsay rules were in effect for those hearings those people wouldn't even be allowed to testify in the first place. Partisan hack bitch wants to say this isn't a criminal court thing but then compare it to that process when it's convenient to his bitch narrative.

My autism may be getting the better of me, but what you just said seemed to be two separate thought processes in one run-on paragraph.

Are you agreeing with him for an instance than insulting him or am I missing a nuance here?

[clubgop]

Hundreds have been sent to death row on far less credible testimony than US ambassadors and decorated lieutenant colonels.

Based on direct evidence. They actually pointed a finger and witnessed actual criminal events. These supposed Ambassadors and others just played whisper down the partisan bitch alley. If the hearsay rules were in effect for those hearings those people wouldn't even be allowed to testify in the first place. Partisan hack bitch wants to say this isn't a criminal court thing but then compare it to that process when it's convenient to his bitch narrative.

My autism may be getting the better of me, but what you just said seemed to be two separate thought processes in one run-on paragraph.

Are you agreeing with him for an instance than insulting him or am I missing a nuance here?

Where do you see agreement or two separate thought processes?