Support for impeachment slips 4 points from October: poll

So he was doing it for Obama????

 

Sorry the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they are the ones who destroyed the economy.

 

Biden didn't ask anything for personal gain. There is a difference.

 

Maybe.....He did'nt have the power himself

 

You spelled "saved" wrong

 

A president does not have the authority to tax and spend. A president also does not have the constitutional authority to create, repeal or alter law.

During the Obama era, we were indeed in an economic recovery, but it was the weakest recovery in American history.

 

You mean for his son's don't you? Trump just asked the Ukrainian President to coordinate with the US AG.



If Biden really did this then he would be unfit for being President. If Biden didn't do it then it would go nowhere with the AG, if he did he should be brought to justice.

 

That's why Trump asked.

 

It crashed in late 2007, a year after the Democrats took control of it.

 

Must have been a pretty short investigation since Spanky gave them the money.

 

Republican talking points that have no merit.

So the republican defense is...."he fixed what we screwed up, but it took him too long." Seriously ?

 

Which policy exactly that the dems enacted caused the crash......go ahead, I'll wait.

 

trumps election was non-democratic so I am not sure of your point.
If you argue that trumps election is legitimate under the constitution (it is) then his impeachment is also.

 

A $Billion dollars to fire the prosecutor........of course he was fired.

 

Start a new thread, but don't derail this one.

 

Community Reinvestment Act.

Gregg Jarrett nails this impeachment farce:

"Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine who will testify on Wednesday, told Schiff’s committee that it was his “understanding” there was a link between U.S. security assistance and an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. How did Taylor arrive at his opinion? He heard it through discussions with other diplomats, although there is no indication that any of these individuals had direct knowledge of anything. The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo."

But wait. If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

My favorite purveyor of assorted hearsay is another star witness for Schiff this Wednesday. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record."

 

Manufacturing dirt to legitimize an impeachment is an absolute coup d'état. Impeachment proceedings started the day he walked into the white house. Ukraine is merely the flavor of the day.

 

Or maybe it wasn't tied to the money but that would kill your faux outrage. I didn't see you pissed Obama was investigating a political rival? I didn't see your outrage that hilary actually paid Russian intelligent officers to investigate Trump? Man this one has your shorts on fire though, I wonder why. My first inclination is that your side is a bunch of partisan hacks but it could be much worse.

 

Really, care to explain, or did you just make that up?

 

I could agree with you but I need a favor though.

 

Yeh I agree, he has done so much to violate the conditions of his office, I guess this one is the straw that broke America’s back.

And how did impeachment proceedings start the day he walked into office?
Both chambers of congress were controlled by republicans for two years in which they accomplished permanent tax cuts for the rich and making the ACA less financially sound.

 

He was elected through our democratic republic via the constitution.
Had the election have been a purely democratic one we would have had Clinton as president.

 

Yeah, all the left's accusations have really stuck.. You know how many times I've heard "We've got him now" since the election? Clue.... ALLOT.

Each accusation have been nothing burgers.

 

Nadler openly talked about it, the Deep State coup attempt was underway that was alluded to by the WB lawyer.

Many of the tax cuts aren't permanent.

 

So you got nothing...OK...got it