Do Americans Support Impeaching President Trump?

Why so little prosecution?

 

When did he say the name Durham?

 

Why does Trump have to mention "Durham" to President Zelensky to get his point across?

 

It isn't his point then, it is yours.

 

Is there not an ongoing investigation conducted by Durham? Yes there is.

So, why would Trump need to mention "Durham" to President Zelensky?

Pssssst! Trump doesn't!!!!!!

 

Your point is that trump asked zelensky to work on an investigation led by durham except that trump never said durham.

So no, he did not. You just want to pretend that he did.

 

Is there not an investigation currently being conducted? YES!

Trump doesn't have to explain to anybody why he wants a President of another country to cooperate with an ongoing investigation.

Try to keep up.

 

There have been a few opening statements published.
Did you miss them?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-t...f-the-top-us-diplomats-statement-to-congress/

 

Hyper-partisan Trumpery's knee-jerk apologistics are impotent in confronting the credible, coherent testimony by expert witnesses. Whether to impeach or not to impeach is not a static matter. The flustered Cry Baby's desperate attempts to gag those in the know collapsed, and the ever-metastasizing paranoia that everyone is being mean to poor, persecuted p*ssy-grabber is rapidly becoming more laughable as the dynamic process evolves.

Even previously pom-pom flailing Trumaloons who bought prestigious patronage appointments with million dollar donations are reportedly now sensing the need to come clean:

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told House committees that he believed Ukraine agreeing to open investigations into Burisma Group—a gas company where Democrat Joe Biden’s son once served on the board—and into alleged 2016 election interference was a condition for a White House meeting between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Sondland’s lawyer Robert Luskin said.

Asked by a lawmaker whether that arrangement was a quid pro quo, Mr. Sondland cautioned that he wasn’t a lawyer but said he believed the answer was yes, Mr. Luskin said.​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-ukraine-pressure-was-quid-pro-quo/ar-AAJpoxS
​

And the hits just keep on coming!

DEAD MAN STRUTTING​

​

 

The irony is you are replying to an independent who didn’t vote for Trump with your left wing partisan blinded hate.

Thanks for demonstrating again what a clown show this is. Whether Trump is guilty of something or not, that’s what this is. A clown show.

Carry on...

 

Your emotional perspective is noted. Please refrain from projecting it onto others who are concerned with substantive matters.

Hyper-partisan aspersions aside, Gordon Sondland is a Republican who donated $1 million to Fake Don's election and was appointed by him as United States ambassador to the European Union.

Slavish Trump bum kissers are hysterical at the consistent, corroborative expert testimony that their messiah is impotent to suppress or conceal, despite his desperate attempts to gag witnesses.

The truth is emerging, and that has them in an irrational frenzy.

 

I’m ambivalent about impeachment. You’re certainly in competition for ironic post of the week. Starting off strong...

 

I have consistently opposed impeachment. I have consistently supported the truth being exposed. If the latter is being achieved through the revelations of one expert witness after another, that's a good thing. Some would much prefer that those truths be kept hidden, of course.

 

The only reason I want to see impeachment is so there can be a trial in the senate. So everyone can see both sides present their argument in public. I’m after truth as well. I don’t think it’s possible to get to the truth in the current environment.

 

I recognize that the truth is being exposed in the current process. Truths, once exposed, cannot be hidden by the Senate.

 

Well, you have more faith in your politicians and media than I do.

 

I do not have faith in their power to unreveal truths after they have been exposed, no.

 

Who does?

 

Most Americans don’t understand what impeachment means, something savvy Dems count on. Nor do most understand it doesn’t mean the President will be removed from office. That said, there are many on both sides of the isle that see Impeachment as beneficial to their cause.
On one hand, if impeachment happens and a senate trial begins sometime between the end of November to early next year, during the Senate hearings, no Senator can campaign for office meaning quite a number are removed from competition benefitting some Dem candidates (watch the loudest voices among that group and judge their motivations) and many in the GOP, believing the impeachment hearings will expose the defense opportunity to share evidence and testimony damning to the Dems which along with the likelyhood the Senate will vote to acquit will damage the Dem Party’s pan election chances, meaning many in the GOP are covert, self benefit, supporters of impeachment (as long as they aren’t identified with it) believing the bid will fail in the senate.
So, I would suggest the polls don’t provide a true or complete assessment of American sentiment anymore than they did in 2016.
Personally, I hope the Dems keep moving forward. Every step provides the cross chaos that helps peel back the elitist business culture prevalent in Washington where elected representatives and government employees seemingly accumulate assets magically many magnitudes that of the official compensation afforded by jobs. Whether you like Trump or not, the peeling of the onion as a consequent of the storm is beneficial to Americans... but only, if recognized and something is done. I often wonder, how much revenue is wasted by the never ending, perpetual political adversarial system of government (over compromise strategies). Without really understanding few American realize how much of their taxes (over and above political party donations) are used to wage political war over paying for government services. Certainly not the picture the Founding Fathers had in mind... and in fact was a concern as a potential threat to the Republic discussed by those that contributed their thinking as represented in the Federalist Papers.

 

Published? That's not the same as "showing" as you stated earlier.

 

Showing, published.. It matters not.
Wait until they bring those boys & girls back for public testimony. Will you cry because it's publicized? Bet you do.

 

Yes it does matter.

Showing means there's something to watch.

Published means there's something to read.

Two totally different things.

 

Trump and his fans only read comic books as watch cartoons.

 

Another asinine post.