"Trump's troubles won't end with a Senate acquittal"

Sure it is, you implied Biden was guilty based on Hannity inneundo, and the facts pointed out in the articles I forwarded, and there are plenty of others if you need them, prove otherwise and they are documented, unlike the talk radio talking points you floated

 

Also very big of you to admit that it is about emotions, like/dislike and not about justice. I don't like Trump, but your party has successfully made him the lesser of evils. I will end up voting for him even though I will have to spit afterwards.

 

And the definition of tyranny is shutting one side out of the process, even when they have the right time after tiime

 

Fact. Biden got an investigator fired
Fact. Burisma was a very corrupt company
Fact. Hunter Biden, who we know is a scumbag from his other dealings worked for Burisma
Fact joey cannot claim the prosecutor was removed for corruption because the guy who replaced his is just as bad " cut from the same cloth" as Yanovich testified.


As I've been saying since all this started. We need to investigate ever American who ever set foot in or had dealings with Ukraine.

 

Not only that using impeachment for personal gain, getting a Democrat in the White House , is an amazing abuse of power and miscarriage of justice.

 

Any you have that very thing. You have sworn testimony that Trump was largely unconcerned about the actual corruption but just wanted a public announcement of it, to smear Biden. In any case, why else would he violate standard protocol, which is to do an investigation through the FBI? The answer is that not only did he know they would find nothing there was no legal cause to begin an investigation in the first place. Not only did he illegally bribe a foreign official with nearly 400 million dollars of taxpayer's money he violated the rights so of a Gold Star citizen in the process, but noooo, that's not impeachable.

 

Um, no.

 

All of that is your preferred spin..

I'm sorry your angry but that is neither my fault or Trump's.

There was no sworn testimony on Trump's motives.

No, withholding the aid was not impeachable.

Bribery certainly impeachable, but the evidence doesn't prove that happened.

 

Nah, we'll wait until he's dead, then have our own Cadaver Synod (The problem is that once we dig him up we'll find his hair is still alive and it will run off to haunt the Secret Archives of the Library of Congress.)

 

And you base that myth on?

 

What, now you're saying it wasn't withheld?. Hell, is there a Ukraine? Is there Russia? Yeh, the entirety of the largest nation on the Earth's surface is part of the Deep State, the whole millennia-long history was made up so Dems could make Trump look bad.

 

Nope.. It applies to everything because it is a Constitutional mandate. Just like the 14th amendment equal protection clause was applied in the Obergefel case.

Equal Protection has become a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The only way that that is not going to apply in any situation is if the Constitution itself would be modified. Good luck with that...

 

Fact. Biden got an investigator fired because he wasn't investigating people, not because he was. Firing him to shield his son makes no sense at all.

We are investigating one American who had a lot of dealings with them right now We'll get to the others in good time. A lot of them probably have to be removed from the Republican Congress first

 

Motives are routinely inferred from conduct. If your standard were applied to criminal trials, no one would ever get convicted unless they admitted to intending to commit the crime.

In this case we have lots of evidence from which his motives can be inferred beyond any reasonable doubt. Including testimony from people in his orbit. Some of whom spoke directly with him.

 

Not true, Trump delayed aid to other countries, South Korea for one, based on corruption concerns. He isn't business as usual, where once a nation gets our aid they get it forever, no matter what. That is what ticked off the foreign service Swamp people.

 

Where is the alleged crime here? The bipartisan support?

 

"Should be" huh? Yet, was it frozen? Were investigations into the Bidens or the DNC announced? Search hard for the answer but let me just give it to you.......NO.....is the only correct answer here. So why the impeachment and why the trial? Someone answer that.

 

I find thehill website to be very good, non partisan, opinion pieces aside,a very informative. I see no reason not to accept the article.

The impeachment has overshadowed many issues, including our situation in Iraq, which is a concern for me, as well as scores of domestic issues. Whatever happens with the Senate trial, the real concern for all should be that Tuesday in November, because that will have more weight for the next few years, IMHO.

 

No, it was due to prima facie evidence of wrong doing and criminality.

 

*LOFL*

 

Boy, you'd think that something would've come of such awesome and fact-filled investigations!

 

They never really investigated Obama or considered impeachment even though there were ample examples of impeachable offenses, including one Obama readily admitted to. The FBI (Comey) had already given Hillary a get out of jail free for her violation of the espionage act. When Gowdy said he would make a referral to DOJ about Hillary's perjury in front of Congress that Comey, under oath, admitted to, he either forgot, or the DOJ rejected the referral, which they do all the time, especially for older cases.

 

If I came across doubting the number of bills, I didn't mean to. It's just no one knows about them. If the hill says they did, that's good in my book. But the majority leader in the senate tabling bills passed by the house which is controlled by the opposite party is nothing new. It's old hat so to speak. I agree with concentrating on November for one and all.

 

What "damage" are you talking about and how can you prove that it will have an impact on the election?

 

Wrong!

Your criminal IMPOTUS inherited an incredible economy!