New CNN Poll Shows 50% of Americans Support Removing Trump From Office

Despite the unfortunate timing, the Democratic House leadership was finally forced to honor their Constitutional responsibilities by initiating the impeachment inquiry.

It has been conducted efficiently, and the patriotic, apolitical public servants who have testified under oath - despite the inevitable dung-flinging by hardcore Trumpers - have provided a plethora of devastating, damning information. (As has Trump's very own million dollar baby, Gordon “Was There a Quid Pro Quo? The Answer Is Yes!” Sondland.)

The political Kabuki act aside, the invaluable achievement of the revelatory process is the public knowledge (that some persist in impeding by gagging key witnesses) attained.

A knowledgable electorate is essential for democracy to recover and succeed in America, and that end is being served.

 

The interests of the public are with the executive branch(and yes, before Trump this was a common thought agreement. We didn't act to disrupt the Obama Administration to use their words "outside of normal channels", the opposing party might not have passed the legislation he wanted, or acted as quickly as he wanted.)

But despite the fact that Obama ordered a technical US Citizen, Al-Maliki to die without a warrant, we merely puckered up and put up with it.

Here, we can't even put up with a phone call due to a theory that it's to "hurt a political rival." Even though that exact same thing happened to Trump in 2016.

 

You want me to be blunt on this? I don't think it's a crime to access what should be publicly known information(for example, HIllary's cheating with Donna Braille.) Since we voters would like to be on a need-to-know basis, why do I have to rely on Russia for information that would better inform my choices?

We were not "attacked" by the Russians, they interjected themselves by way of being a medium for information that we otherwise would not have received(and the WP/NYT covered the cables.). Rather than bemoaning the Russians, the greater thing you should bemoan as a citizen is that save for such interference, the almost-President was not willing to be on the level up with you.

On levels far greater than Trump.

 

Apparently you did not watch the full inquiry as Sondland TOTALLY pulled back his opening statement and stated he presumed the aid was tied to the investigation.

"I've said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming."

 

Sondland, a Trump toady in a position to know, confirmed that he presumed Fake Don's caper was a "Quid pro quo." Given the irrefutable evidence, and the refutation of the various phony pretexts attempted, that's a reasonable conclusion, but Fake Don needs to stop trying to hide the privileged information concerning his scam that Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, and others are in a better position to expose.

The best way to get to the bottom of what went down is not to obstruct such revelations.

 

If you say so, but I don't believe you.

 

Prepare for desperate diversions aplenty.

 

2 + 2 = 4

 

Then you should be demanding that Trump and the RNC release all of their internal documents publicly.

Legitimately, your belief makes no sense to me. These campaigns should be permitted to strategize privately and to seek as many advantages as possible, without committing a violation of the law. And even then, those violations should be revealed through the due course of a proper investigation - not a data dump selectively released by a foreign power.

 

What makes you think I wouldn't? A political campaign is NOT a government official(that's the other problem here with the claims regarding the Russian interference, but that's unrelated to this discussion for now). Whereas the government can claim executive privilege and cite classified information that if released, would damage the nation, Donna giving Hillary advance prep time with the questions ruins the spirit of fair debate, and absolutely showed the kind of President she'll be.

I wish I didn't need Russia for that information, I genuinely do. But we as citizens had been lied to, and for me in my opinion that's unacceptable.

"Mistakes were made!", No, if it were a mistake you wouldn't black out the lines and you'd be candid to admit it the first time you did it. As a matter of both law and philosophy, the moment you commit to the action it no longer becomes a mistake, but malicious.

What this comes down to is very simple: Corruption in government is perfectly acceptable, so long as its "our team" that's doing it(both ways, Republican and Democrat) and that's very damaging for US Government.

 

Actually, 2 presumptions + 2 presumptions still equals 0 facts.

 

The equation for every argument is Evidence + Assumption = Conclusion.

All of the witnesses, including Sondland, offered Evidence and their Assumptions. From those, it is exceptionally obvious what is the proper conclusion.

Trump abused his power by requesting campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of a publicly announced investigation against his domestic political rivals while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights. Trump then obstructed justice when he tried to hide and lie about that effort to bribe Ukraine. And finally, Trump obstructed congress when he ordered all current and former employees to refuse to cooperate with validly issued subpoenas and to refuse to turn over any documents relevant to the Congressional investigation.

 

You keep referencing the Donna leaked a question to Hillary Clinton issue, but did she really alter even that debate in even a tiny fashion? She leaked to Hillary that they would ask about water quality issues before the debate in Flint. Like, holy ****, what a shocker.

 

We accept the impeachment as inevitable. We just don't want it delayed until there isn't enough time before the election for the trial. The sooner the better for us.

 

You do have a way of taking simple statements and turning them into volumes.

 

When did Ukraine make such an announcement?

When did Ukraine get the funding? It was in the fiscal year it was approved. So there is no issue.

Say you got a subpoena as a radical rabble rouser here. Would you want to obey it?

 

The pressure should be firmly planted on the Democrats and not the republicans. A Trial, as we get from the media, is to learn if a person is guilty. I know, extreme bails and putting people in jail seems to say otherwise. I argue if the man is presumed innocent, charge him no bail nor hold him in a cell. If we are lied to, as we are so much of the time by Democrats, they spin that totally. On one hand they claim he is innocent and then bleat out he is guilty so lock him up and force him to pay steep bails.

 

I and I believe millions of others believe in innocent first. So forcing Trump to in essence convict himself is crazy talk. Even in the constitution is the guarantee one can't be forced to convict oneself from one's own production of proof.

 

Sondland under cross stipulated he had no first hand knowledge about Trump. So this dog and pony show vs Trump should have ended then and there.

 

If the debaters are going to leak questions to candidates, why even bother having these things? Indeed, they are now getting routinely summed up by TV Pundits, thus making them absolutely boring and dull TV.(Especially when you disagree with them and wish you could counter them yourself.)

 

You are correct.... They lose either way.

The base wants Impeachment and the Independents are not being fooled.

CNN just provided more proof as to why most people now think that their whole media organization is not worth paying attention to.

The irony is that there is no, "UP," side for the Dems in this process.
They took a shot at Trump in a biased setting and it actually backfired.
Now they are at risk of exposing more of their own corrupt behavior.

 

Your statement is categorically false. You have no proof that a foreign power released anything. Fiona Hill just reinforced the talking points but again, there was never any proof.

Just the word of Crowdstrike who was on the payroll of the DNC, and they never explained how the data was supposedly transferred.

 

Christmas work for you?

 

Attempting to commit a crime, but stopping because you got caught, is still a crime.

Yes. When you get a subpoena, you do not get to decide that it came from a "radical rabble rouser."

 

Why should Trump have the authority to order other people with knowledge of the potential crime to not testify? What prevents a future President from ordering an administration official to commit a felony and then to prevent that official from testifying in the ensuing investigation?