Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an interesting question.

truthfully, most of the people do not care.... they take for granted that politicians do questionable stuff... boys will be boys. When you have a constant dribbling out of information, each dribble does not sound all tha5 significant, Imo, the objective is to gather the full case and present it as a prosecutor would

 

Perhaps to you and your colleagues
In any case.... when the prosecution investigates a case.... they are looking to try to prove guilt, not to act as judge and jury..., that is the last stage of a trial.... judge and jury evaluating what has or has not been proven

 

Do you KNOW it is baseless garbage?
It seems to me that Nick Mulvaney has confirmed there WAS a quid pro quo
I really don’t know what you would find inappropriate if you are ok with using us aid as a kudgel to extract partisan political assistance from foreign nations....something explicitly forbidden in the constitution by founders who were wary of any foreign intervention in our domestic political processes

 

You have confused a political process with a judicial one. Impeachment is not a judicial action.

 

Uh Read Mulvaney more thoroughly and carefully he did in fact say the exact opposite there was only quid pro quo in regard to Ukrainian interference in US election I thought you all wanted that sort of stuff stopped?

 

Ok, all the more reason for less transparency during the investigation

but the fact is.... there basically three phases to the process
First and current phase, gathering information to see if there is even a credible reason to proceed
Presenting that evidence to the full house to see if the assess a reason to impeach
Presenting the bill of impeachment to the senate to see if 2/3 see a reason to remove the president

 

Ok, you and Mulvaney agree the aid was held up pending action on the investigation Into possible Ukrainian election interference.... which as I understand it is completely without substance

and, it is on the record that
Trump also asked Zelenskiy to investigate a domestic political opponent, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son Hunter Biden, who had served as a director for a Ukrainian energy company. Zelenskiy agreed during the call to carry out the investigation that Trump sought. The U.S. aid was later provided to Ukraine.

There is zero connection between the Bidens (what ever they did) and the election interference
and in terms of trumps call.... these all seemed bundled together

but, let me ask you, just as a person..., regardless of what can be proved since what ever can be proved will be irrelevant in the senate.... but, just your personal hunch..... is Donald trump the sort of person who might well do this?

 

I believe those subponeas were after the vote of the House and the formal inquiry had begun and were issued by Ronio's judiciary committee which had be tasked to hold the inquiry.

 

The call was certainly not illegal but then Democrats avoided the blantant felonies committed by Clinton limited the "trial" to three days and three witness and refused to impach and remove him from office.

 

What you understand and what is reality may well be quite different things. That remains to be seen. What Mulvaney indicated was that there was nothing of that attached to the Biden which is basically just a heads up by Trump based on what Biden himself had said.

 

What I said...was not what I said...you heard it wrong.

Great denial

 

But...........no formal vote is necessary to begin a legit impeachment inquiry with enforceable subpoenas. The House vote preceding the Nixon impeachment inquiry is immaterial as a precedent.

 

Whataboutisms need not apply. The solicitation of foreign help with a US election is a violation of law.

 

Well, you did not answer my question as to whether you think trump s inclined to do this
It is certainly the case the so far, trump et al have denied ANY quid pro quo
Which claim Mulvaney destroyed
It is true that aid was withheld
That there was a quid pro quo
And that when discussing the quid pro quo, trump included discussion of the Bidens
We do not know of what other witnesses will testify to

 

To a great extent the public has become numb to the dribble because it's been happening since day one of this admin.

 

Agreed and the polls reflect that. The never ending whining and pointless cries from the dems are making people sick

 

The juvenile letter President Sharpie sent to Erdogan this week, that one thing, would have right wingers hyper-ventilating for a month if Hillary wrote it............as unimaginable as it is that she could have. It was more than a display of childish, ignorant behavior. It was an example of a breakdown in what was the normal process of vetting communications between a US prez and the leader of another country over something so important. That process would have included editing by and contributions from staff members of the Defense and State depts. What you don't seem to understand is rather than there being too much scrutiny of Don's incompetence there hasn't been enough since there is a constant onslaught of buffoonery day after day.

 

Clinton couldn’t write anything like it, nor would she. She’s a war monger, she wouldn’t be working for peace

 

They denied any qpq related to Biden...

 

Yes but during the call, it was all co mingled

 

What the senate does is none of the houses business..

 

Yes we do. They are testifying

Sondland Testifies: No Quid Pro Quo in Ukraine Call, Trump Policy.

“I knew that a public embrace of anti-corruption reforms by Ukraine was one of the pre-conditions for securing a White House meeting with President Zelensky. My view was, and has always been, that such Western reforms are consistent with U.S. support for rule of law in Ukraine going back decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Nothing about that request raised any red flags for me, Ambassador Volker, or Ambassador Taylor.”​

Quid Pro Quos, inducements, threats, even force are the currency of international diplomacy, it only becomes a problem if it involves a corrupt purpose, as the Biden situation. It is in our NATIONAL INTEREST to get to the bottom of Biden's corrupt scheme with Hunter, and the interference with the 2016 elections.

 

Precedents apply. Asking a country to cooperate in an investigation of corruption as required by treaty is not a violation of the law. It is a duty. AS VP Biden injected himself into an investigation of corruption in Ukraine and actually DID extort them. Nothing illegal in the letter. No quid pro quo, no extortion. And as I said it was the Democrats who in an impeachment avoided blatant crimes being dumped in their laps.

 

But nothing those subpoenas were after the formal inquiry was begun by vote of the House. That is the precedent set by the previous Congresses. Let's have a fair process following those precedents what are you and the Democrats afraid of?

 

Only after the Zelinsky brought it up.