73

Do you think impeachment should be about executing a political hit?

At what? (and this is a serious question. I consider him being caught at … nothing.)

Not an excuse for abusing the impeachment process for a political hit. Whataboutism doesn’t justify anything. I expect you, of all posters here, to appreciate that.

74

Bill Clinton getting impeached over lying about sexual favors wasn’t a political hit?

75

As a political hit? No.

In this case Trump handed them abuse of power when he used his office to further his reelection campaign. And yes I think such abuse of power is impeachable. Then he compounded it by ordering subordinates to ignore House subpeona’s and not testify or turn over required documents. Obstruction of Congress being another impeachable offense that he handed them.

I don’t blame the DEMs, I blame Trump for being an idiot.

I don’t blame the police for arresting someone robbing a 7-11 which is what Trump is trying to do with the victim defense. If he’d had the testicular fortitude to admit it was wrong and move on he wouldn’t now be the 3rd impeached President in American history.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

1 Like
76

That’s terrible that the GOP would block the show. After all, what are impeachments for except publicity and for personal political gain?

1 Like
77

Did that somehow answer the question?

But if official actions can be properly used for political gain, then what is Trump being charged for?

78

Other than in the kangaroo court held by the dems, no court would have accepted the “evidence” of such abuse.

I’m surprised you’re buying it.

79

:sigh:

Impeachment isn’t a court. And ya, there was plenty to confirm what Trump did.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

1 Like
80

I know that. You know I know that.

Seems to me the rules of evidence for such an important undertaking should follow what the courts would do. You and I both trust the courts. (I hope you do anyway…) The sloppy procedures in the Dem “hearings” are what makes it a kangaroo court.

Hearsay. Opinion. Emotion.

The principals who were actually on that call all said there was no quid pro quo. The transcripts of the call show no qpq.

All the “evidence” were 3rd party interpretations.

To me it takes TDS to find them valid.

You’re saying you do.

3 Likes
81

With all these restrictions, it’s hard see the action.

82

So the D smear his re-election campaign.

We know the score.

FWIW. another DOW record…

83

What action.

I thought Pelosi was holding the articles until her face turned blue.

84

I heard he dusted the number one terrorist.

Is that what he is being impeached for?

85

I wonder how the press will cover Chairman Shiff when he is called as a witness?

86

I genuinely hope they call Schiff as a witness.

Remember, the questions are written by the Senators, and CJ Roberts will then read them. There is no ability for the questioners to interrupt answers, or move quickly to another set of questions, or yell over the witness as they answer.

87

I wonder if the trial will last several months… the candidates can’t leave the senate to run for office and Joe and his son will have to wait in the wings to testify… oh what tangled webs…

88

Clinton’s impeachment lasted 6 weeks or so. I’d be surprised if this lasts that long, and especially any longer.

If Joe Biden were called, which I also hope happens, it would be a mere week or so out of his life and campaigning.

89

Benghazi hearings ring a bell?

90

One good deed doesn’t erase all the bad deeds

91

Ah! A revenge impeachment.

1 Like
92

You have heard wrong. It was another administration that dusted Osama Bin Ladin

.
.
.
.WW, PHS