When assessing Trump’s guilt or innocence...

Really? In my ... I don't know... almost 50 years of experience in political debate (I started young) I have seen many. As a matter of fact, I learned objectivity by watching others.

I wouldn't quite call that an ideology. That's a "voting strategy". or something like that.

What is it all for? Why did we create a nation. How can we make it better? Do we really want a "more perfect union"? If so, how can we make it "more perfect"? Does social justice help make it more perfect?... Is it "more perfect" if we have a few rich and just about everybody else poor, or is it better to have a large middle class? .... Ideology involves many many questions. My problem with most self-proclaimed independents is that they refuse to make the effort to answer them. I don't mean you, personally. But if they don't even answer these questions, they are not contributing to the solution. And, if you're not part of the solution, you need to be very careful to not be part of the problem.

 

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's staunchest supporters, appears to be confused. His latest defense of Trump is that Trump's Ukraine policy is "incoherent." No kidding, that is what he said.

"What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo," Graham said.

Graham told reporters that he would not be reading newly released deposition transcripts, calling the Democratic-led impeachment probe a “bunch of BS."

Graham told us that he hopes the President will be able to call his own witnesses. Assuming it would be the White House staff who would support Trump on the witness stand, apparently Graham doesn't know that it is the President who is stonewalling White House staff from testifying.

When Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Graham about Sondland's testimony, Graham contrived a conspiracy accusing Sondland of switching up his testimony because of a “connection” with Democratic operatives.

“Why did [Sondland] change his testimony?” Graham said. “Was there a connection between [Sondland] and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff’s staffers?”

Graham didn't even know the name of the witness. He kept referring to Gordon Sondland as “Sunderland.”

It is clear that Graham is losing it, and the Senator has no idea what is going on. Was he sober when he said that? This conspiracy is beyond comprehension.
Sondland is, after all, a Trump-appointed ambassador, a poltical appointee, not an experienced envoy. He is also a Republican mega-donor who reportedly contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

This is the same ambassador whom Trump recently described as “a really good man” and a “great American.”

And yet, we’re now supposed to believe that Sondland may be in league with House Democrats?

Well, according to Graham, that is a possibility. Actually, Sondland revised his testimony because his lawyer told him that perjury in a Congressional hearing is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. In his previous testimony, Sondland lied to protect Trump.

Graham is the perfect example of the confusion and the problems Trump Republicans have trying desperately to come up with some angle to defend Trump. As Graham illustrates, it is a losing endeavor.

 

Lot of powerful people wanted this coup the day Trump was elected.

 

If I remember correctly, that was the original defense: "Trump is too stupid to collude with Russia". Now he's "too stupid to extort Ukraine". It never worked, though. But hey! When you're desperate... you just throw all the crap that you can get a hold of at the wall and hope something sticks. But they ran out. So they're going back to throwing old crap.

 

Well, I'm one of those "few" that you mention. I defended Obama at times through his presidency, for example I did my own investigation into the laws at the time that Obama was born when the whole conspiracy started, and it wouldn't have mattered if he was actually born in Hawaii or not as his mother was American. That alone made him a US citizen.

But that is the advantage of me being an actual Independent and not just a disabused Dem/Repub. I don't care about party or ideology. So, no, if a Dem were in Trumps shoes with the same exact things going on I would still consider that Dem innocent based on what I know and see.

 

If the impeachment is based on falsehoods...then I would consider it a coup. A coup isn't just about taking over the government by force, it is also about subterfuge being used to take it over. It is also about putting in place, through force or subterfuge or both, someone that you would rather have than the one that is currently in the position of power.

That said: What the Dems are doing isn't so much a coup as it is political pandering and political maneuvering. They know that Trump won't actually be removed from office via the impeachment proceedings. They are doing all this as a way to try and fire up their base for 2020 because they know that they only way that they can win the White House is if they can smear Trump enough that they will get a record turnout come election day/night. Because that is the only way they are going to win. If they don't get that record turnout then Trump WILL win according to Moody's.

 

Neither. Because I wouldn't have been a WB with this because there's nothing there. But lets say that there was something there? I would look for a lawyer that was more into the Law and not biased towards either party.

 

I did the same. The only problem is that he could be a dual citizen. Not a biggie since America doesn't recognize dual citizenship, still... there was his father who might have wanted his son to be... Nigerian was it?

Anyway, yeah, as you point out, his mother was an American citizen so that automatically entitled him to American citizenship.

 

Feelings are not evidence. And since Taylor doesn't even have 1st hand knowledge of the talks that is all that he's got...feelings.

 

I disagree. While those questions may be important to you, they may not be important to others. For example, you don't actually need to know "why" we created this nation to see the problems that we currently have. Problems that have nothing to do with why this country was founded. Climate change for example is not something our Founders every considered yet if we focused on green technology responsibly we could easily improve this nation in many ways (including increasing the middleclass). Sure, it'd be useful for some of our problems, but not all. So answering a question like that is just not worth it to those that only focus on things like Climate Change solutions.

If you wish you could start a new thread and we could discuss those questions. I could answer, most if not all of those questions with my own ideas and opinions.

 

You're objectivism is commendable.

I think Trump acted wrongly here. QPQ or not, he asked (arguably tried to manipulate) Ukraine to investigate possible corruption by the Bidens.

I doubt any would object to the assertion: Its part of Trumps job to have possible corruption investigated.

Two logical conclusions result from the emboldenned statement: Trump was right to seek an investigation, and Trump was wrong for not tasking our own resources to the job and trying to have the Ukrainians do it instead.

I think the crux of this issue is: is impeachment being sought because he tried to delegate the investigation to a foreign power? Or is impeachment being sought because of the attempt at investigation itself?

Or put another way, would impeachment have been sought if Trump had instead asked (or manipulated) Ukraine to merely cooperate with a US-led investigation? This would have been the proper protocol.

To answer this question objectively, we have to remove partisanship from the equation.

Suppose Trump had asked (or manipulated) the Ukranians to investigate (or cooperate with an investigation of) a politically unalligned ('I' for example) US diplomat who wasn't campaigning for a POTUS nom. Would it still be an impeachable offense?

No way in hell.

The Dems are mad at the target of the investigation, not the (addmitedly, poor) methods in which it was conducted.

 

Trump is also alleged to have committed sex crimes, even his wife had accused him of rape - we will never know the truth about Bill or Donald - we do know that neither has been faithful to their wife(s)

but that has nothing to do with Trump's recent bad deeds of trying to use a foreign government to go after his political rivals

 

Again, you're trying to create a protected class known as "political rivals".

No, they are not going to be protected. When are democrats going to realize that they are targets every bit as much as republicans? I don't know, but trying to say they can't be targeted is just stupid.

Democrats will be targeted, and that is that. Get used to it.

Stop being snowflakes and get used to it.

 

you think Bush and Trump were not spying on Americans by collecting phone number called from and too? Trump is doing it worse then any other President before him - Bush created the Patriot act that made all that possible - that been happening for years and years all the way back to ma bell - but don't worry, now the government is using the googles, apples and face books to collect your data, cause they own the data.... not you....

Trump and Bush supporting torture and Trump even telling the police to bang a suspects head against the car when handcuffed?

Trump supporting north korea after what they did to an American boy

Trump supporting Saudi Prince when they killed a reporter?

"Putin, Saudi Crown Prince high-five at G-20 summit"

 

My mistake. I failed to insert "all things being equal" would you want a lawyer etc.

 

nope, Trump could have asked the DOJ to investigate, but even Trump's own people said this was bogus, but he can not ask a foreign government to investigate his political rival - the founders were quite clear about this

this was political, Trump even wanted them to announce this publically, so he could use it politically...

 

If a Democrat was doing what Trump was doing, I would be just as much opposed. And I would not be sticking my head in the sand and pretending things are other than they are, as apparently all Republicans have decided to do.

 

WOW no kidding? I would have guessed like three years, 2016! Before them maybe some about how wonderful Mr. Obatard was ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

I would posit that you couldn't FIND a Dem doing the insane things Trump is doing but I can tell you

Were this a Dem doing ANY of what Trump is doing and saying...Trump's current supporters would be screaming for his head

 

Then again like those accusing Trump with only hearsay and claims, I find it hard to put any stock in what people say anymore. Especially on this forum ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

If I heard the conversation, or became aware of it, I would have blown the whistle. I would have sent letters to anyone any everyone. But then I am an honest person.

 

I agree. Party should make no difference. But it will, from now on.. there will never again be bipartisanship. The days of working together are over.. expect cutthroat politics from now on.

 

umm... okay, you don't know how the government works.

See, the DOJ is part of the executive branch. That means that Trump is in charge of the DOJ. You didn't know this, so you can excused for ignorance, but going forward, you now know that the department of justice is under the executive branch.

As for being political, I don't know what you're on about. Are you saying that politicians shouldn't be political?

If that's your take, all I can say is.... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Umm Democrats were calling him guilty before the first witness testified..

Republicans are correct in calling him not guilty, that's the legal baseline they are supposed to start with... innocent until proven guilty... the Democrats and only the Democrats are wrong on this.

 

Wrong... see Clinton impeachment.