To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Impeached from what?

 

That's right. All that proves is that Trump isn't completely stupid. He knows others in his government are listening in.

If someone walks up to you and points a gun at you and says give me all your money, is it necessary them to say, "This is a robbery," for you to know this is a robbery?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Some things are just obvious.

 

Naw, she doesn't. That's the point. She will vote the party line. That is what counts.

I know you will have trouble accepting that. You believe everything a Republican says, geez, even Trump.

 

Probably because the Democrats didn't impeach Trump but 60 million voters.

 

Give it up. I don't answer incredibly stupid questions or address whacky remarks.

 

Trump didn't point a gun at the PM of the Ukraine either.

 

You think so? She has been a reliable dem voter. A female Romney.

 

Ah. You are -ignorant- of the fact you demonstrated the invalidity of the 2nd Article.
No surprise.

When did the court judge these subpoenas to be legal and the people in question had to answer them?
It hasn't happened yet?
There you go. Thanks.

 

-Your- opinion does not matter.

 

Ironic, given your propensity present nothing other than.

 

President, not PM. Zelensky is the president of Ukraine.

 

The courts haven't decided what to do with the witnesses that broke the law, failure to appear.

As for Trump, because he is the President, he cannot be indicted. So, he is being impeached, and he provided direct evidece along with his chief of staff.

It is all pretty much clear cut, and Trump Republicans are going to acquit him. Americans will have the final word on November 3, and, as I have shown, the GOP has already lost key elections because of Trump, including control of the House.

 

Look at you, avoiding the issue put to you.
When did the court judge these subpoenas to be legal and the people in question had to answer them?
Well?

 

I don't know when the judges issued the subpoenas. Sometime during the impeachment inquiry. Why is that important?

This is far more important, which is why you avoided the statement.

It is all pretty much clear cut, and Trump Republicans are going to acquit him. Americans will have the final word on November 3, and, as I have shown, the GOP has already lost key elections because of Trump, including control of the House.

 

Look at you, STILL avoiding the issue put to you.
When did the court judge the house's subpoenas to be legal and the people in question had to answer them?
Well?

 

Talking about paranoia, geez.

Trump’s recent comments over the Christmas holidays suggested he is fixated on impeachment and that Pelosi’s central role in it is very much on his mind going into 2020. His obsession took precedence over his Christmas message.

The Hill reports, "As of Friday, Trump had tweeted or retweeted messages about Pelosi more than 20 times since he left Washington for a two-week stint at his Palm Beach, Fla., resort, and he’s addressed her during two public appearances he has made on his vacation."

No doubt about it, Trump is a sick man. Even his supporters can't defend him. They keep trying to change the subject with silly questions such as this, "When did the court judge the house's subpoenas to be legal and the people in question had to answer them?"

 

Further proof of this is his supporters have given up trying to defend him. Outside of a few whacky comments, there is nothing they can say.

 

Speaking of someone with nothing to say,... we have you, avoiding the issue put to you.
When did the court judge the house's subpoenas to be legal and the people in question had to answer them?
Well?

 

One way or another Trump is going down. The Washington Post writes:

• As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia.
• Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest.
• Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests.
• Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it.
• Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB, tried to get the Pentagon to assume responsibility for getting the aid released, to deflect blame away from the White House for its own role in blocking it. This led a Pentagon official to pronounce herself “speechless.”
• Duffey froze the aid with highly unusual bureaucratic tactics, refused to tell Pentagon officials why Trump wanted it withheld and instructed them to keep this “closely held.” (Some of this had already been reported, but in narrative context it becomes far more damning.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ns-just-weakened-trumps-impeachment-defenses/

 

True - the Constitution specifies the end date and time of his term(s) and therefore when he must leave office.
Thus, as I have told you for almost -3- years now: He will remain your President until at least January of 2021, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Politico reports, "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed his call Monday for White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial after The New York Times published new details about the effort to withhold aid to Ukraine.

“Simply put: In our fight to have key documents and witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial, these new revelations are a game-changer,” Schumer said at a news conference in New York City."

 

Mike Pompeo will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv early next month, the State Department announced Monday — setting the stage for a highly anticipated and politically sensitive diplomatic encounter on the eve of Trump’s likely Senate impeachment trial.

Pompeo’s audience with Zelensky will take place during the first leg of a five-day, multicountry tour by the secretary through Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Oh, boy, I would dearly loved to be in that entourage. Zelensky wants very much to stay out of American politics.

 

Right on cue.

The Times reports, "Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, criticized some of her Senate colleagues, including the majority leader, for appearing to “prejudge the evidence” in impeachment proceedings against President Trump, becoming the second Republican senator to question Senator Mitch McConnell’s pledge to coordinate with the White House."

Now Susan feels better, and she can vote right along side McConnell, Graham, and the rest. Who do these Republicans think they are kidding? What a bunch of phonies.

 

Why do you find it necessary to respond to your nonsense?

 

Collins also said, "What I don't understand is why the House, having issued subpoenas, to Secretary Mike Pompeo for example, did not seek to enforce those subpoenas in court, and instead rush to get the articles of impeachment passed before Christmas, and yet have not transmitted them to us in the Senate. So that seems an odd way to operate."

Collins is either extremely dense or she thinks Americans are.

You would think a Senator would know that if the House pursued witnesses through the courts, this could drag on until next Christmas. She should know this because it has already happened. In the spring the House subpoenaed Don McGahn to testify. It is past Christmas, and that litigation is still pending in the courts.

Collins didn't know all this? Remarkable.

The second part of her statement is equally ludicrous. The Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said he was taking his cues from the accused. He said there will be no difference between his approach to the Senate trial and that of the White House. Senator Graham has said he doesn't need any witnesses, evidence, or documents. He has already decided to acquit Trump. The House is in no big hurry to send the Articles of Impeachment over to a Senate that has already made up its mind.

Also, Pelosi has said that before she sends the Articles, she wants to know what the rules of the trial will be. Is that so outrageous?

Collins thinks so. She says "that seems an odd way to operate."

Maybe Collins is odd.