Let's ask a fundamental question...

what cover up? The phone transcripts, at the center of it all, released to public.

the house called several key witnesses, 12 of them and over 30 hours of hearings.

and which witnesses exactly would’ve made a difference? NONE

But let’s keep going..

the house refused to call in many witnesses the trump administration wanted in hearings and refused to let the president defend himself, something republicans allowed bill clinton to do

Let’s not forget, they held secretive meetings, often deliberately keeping republicans in the dark, something unheard of. This is what happens when you run a SHAM

and btw, Trump has stated he is ok with ANY witness as long as hunter biden, joe biden, schiff and whistleblower testify. Of course, democrats say NO to any of this, WHY? Then they deliberately request trump’s lawyers and others to testify, knowing executive privilege is legitimately applied in these instances and then accuse WH of obstruction, go figure.

so let’s have a trial.. trump will concede and allow any witness, so long as dems agree to any witness WH wants at trial. Fair? Not according to democrats as they are perpetrating biggest sham in american history.

 

Wrong! It doesn't "simply" mean "this for that". That's the etymology, not the meaning. If you translate it directly from the original Latin that's what it could mean (there are other possible translations). But we're not speaking Latin. I'm sure that it will surprise you to know that it is English. It's a technical idiom. And when used, it can only reference a crime.

The quoted sentence alone reveals deficiencies in basic law, basic linguistics and philology, basic current events, basic logic and basic history.... You have a looong way to go.

 

You can argue whether quid pro quo is a crime until the cows come home. Keep in mind it is still just words subject to interpretation. It is not uncommon or necessarily illegal to ask for something in return for something else. Calling it quid pro quo does not automatically make illegal, just because you put a different name on it.

Now on to an almost entirely different subject. No one so far has said they heard Trump ask for anything in return for the investigation. An investigation which should have taken place.

 

It is up to the House to present the reasons and evidence. A huge fail doesn't need to be repeated.

The House chose to stomp on the Constitution, so why should the Senate do something equally as stupid and corrupt?

So my real question to you is, should the Senate do something as pathetic as what the House did under the corrupt Democrats?

My answer would be NO... But what is your answer ? YES they should act like scum bags too?

 

Impeachment is a political process. That involves all sorts of partisan political propaganda, even some truth might filter through. I don't think it is the Republicans or pro Trumpers, conservatives as you call them that the democrats had to convince. It is the independents, a lot of those in neither the pro or anti Trump camps. So far, the Democrats have failed. Convince enough independents of Trump's guilt, they bring pressure on the GOP senators. Especially those up for reelection in November. The numbers say the democrats have failed in this. Since the hearings began on 13 Nov through today, the number of independents for impeachment and removal has risen from 38% to 42%. A four point gain. But more important is the number who are against removal That has risen from 39% to 47% independents against. That's an 8 point gain against. The totals via party breakdown below.

Impeachment hearings began on 13 Nov 2019 vs. 13 Jan 2020

Trump’s approval 13 Nov 43.9%, 13 Jan 44.8%


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html


13 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 84%, 13 Jan Democrats for impeachment and removal 83%.


13 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 12%, 13 Jan Republicans for impeachment and removal 9%.


13 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 38%, 13 Jan Independents for impeachment and removal 42%.


13 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 6%, 13 Jan Democrats against impeachment and removal 11%.


13 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 80%, 13 Jan Republicans against impeachment and removal 87%.


13 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 39%, 13 Jan Independents against impeachment and removal 47%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

I'd say the democrats have failed to convince the less to none partisan independents of the need to remove Trump even though the air waves for the most part were filled with the hearings and House vote being anti Trump. At best it has been a wash. There's also the chance that as Pelosi and her cohorts continue to push this, it may begin to backfire on them as it is beginning to be seen as a very partisan political vendetta against Trump. Not that independents for the most part like Trump, they don't. independents give Trump a 41% favorable, 49% unfavorable. But I do think independents see the house hearings as being very unfair and one sided. That Pelosi is trying to get the Senate to be as unfair and one sided as the House was which independents see as wrong. I may be all wet here, all wrong, it could be nothing more than impeachment fatigue. We'll see how all this plays out, Trump being Trump probably will say something or do something that could very well turn independents against him to being pro removal. Or it could simply be independents dislike congress a whole lot more than they dislike Trump.

Or as Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over until it's over.

 

Trump never asked for an investigation. If you you had read the article of impeachment and listened to the testimony at the hearings, you would know that Trump only wanted a public statement. Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, Sondland and others were pressuring Zelenski to give a public statement on CNN that Trump could use for domestic political purposes. That is why Trump was impeached.

That and refusing to work with Congress. Trump has done no governing since becoming president.

 

If Obama had done the exact same thing, would the Democratic House impeach him?

 

Dang. I am sorry to hear that. I really liked that tax cut, that I apparently did not get.

 

Which is not much of a "stretch". But it doesn't matter what Democrats believe. What matters is the trial.

Why is that of any relevance? 47 votes don't remove a President. Why are you even mentioning it?

Look... you're just repeating right wing radio talking points. Honest people just want a fair trial. Which means that all the evidence is shown. Wherever that evidence leads to is what it is. The evidence counts as much, or maybe even more than the vote. If the evidence clearly does not show the majority of the people that Trump is guilty, and Republicans still protect him, then the people will have a basis to make their own decisions. Exactly the same if the evidence does not show his guilt, and Democrats still vote to convict.

Everything else is irrelevant. Only the evidence counts.

We hope that Republicans and Democrats vote according to the evidence. But, if they don't, we want people to know that they didn't. Simple as that.

 

I think Mueller is still an honest person with good intentions. But he failed to understand how much Trump and his lackeys have changed America into one of its worst (if not the worst) versions in history. He believed that Republicans in Congress would put their love of Country before their own political interest. He was wrong!

 

A fair trial is what I want. But you're not going to get a fair trial when 95, give or take senators already have their minds made up. That's like going to trial, before the trial actually begins know how 11 jurors out of 12 will vote on innocence or guilty. The same applies to the senate at this point, 5 guaranteed votes for guilty, 6 guaranteed for not guilty. One undecided. Only the one undecided will actually weigh the evidence, so maybe 5 or so senators will do the same. It's a stacked jury.

If you can convince me that the 47 Democratic Senators are entering the trial with an open mind, who haven't decided guilt or innocents yet, then I'll come over to your side. But since the fact is at least 45 out the 47 have already decided that Trump is guilty, I don't see you able to do that. It also makes no sense that you are perfectly okay with those 45 having already made their decision, but not with the remaining 53. That you are upset that most of that 53 have decided their vote, their decision ahead of time just like the Democrats have. That makes no sense to me. I suppose you can't see the hypocrisy in your stance here.

Mine is it is either fair to have none, zero senators having made up their minds, pre-judge Trump or its fair to have all the senators to having made up their minds before the trial. All or none. Either way. But not 47 out of 100 having pre-judged, made up their minds already and expect the other 53 to be open minded. Only because they aren't of your party or see things in a different light. Has those dark blue colored glasses really made you that blind to fairness?

You don't want a fair trial, you want one that is guaranteed to convict and remove. You want a game where you and your team begin your touchdown drives on the opponents 40 yard line every time while the opposing team begins their touchdown drive on their own 10 yard line. I want a game where both teams start out on their own 20 yard line. That's not going to happen. So letting both teams start their touchdown drives on their opponent's 40 yard line is about as fair a game as we're going to get.

If the Democrats can pre-judge, so too can the Republicans. Fair is fair after all.

 

There are only two possible answers: "Yes" or "No". I can agree or disagree, but there is nothing to like or dislike about them. I have counted eleven clear answers from Republicans (10 Yes, 1 No). I don't recall you being one of them

 

You didn't answer the question. Why?

A simple yes or no should suffice....

 

BTW. When I posted that... looks like I accidentally deleted part of the text. The last phrase should be "If we use it in the context we're using it, it can only reference a crime" I accidentally deleted the underlined part.

With that... What other interpretation possible in this context would quid pro quo not be a crime? Nobody has claimed one, so you would be the first. Quid pro quo would not be a crime, for example, in the context of contract law. But a President signing a contract with another President behind the back of Congress would certainly be illegal. It would also not be illegal in the medical world. Where it's simply the substitution of one medication for another. But it didn't quite sound like Trump and Zolenski were exchanging home remedies....

Actually, I just wanted to clarify what I said on the first paragraph. If it hadn't been for that I wouldn't even have bothered to respond because your post makes absolutely no sense.

 

Great! So you disagree with the fact that McConnell wants to block them from doing so

That wasn't quite the question on this thread, but it was on the other. So I'll take it!

You do answer the question for this thread below.

So your answer is that a President should not be removed even if he were proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I guess he was right when he said that he could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody, and he wouldn't lose any voters.

Sad but true.

Oh wait! Actually a majority of Republicans have answered that he should be removed if it was proven. So you're on your own, fella.

But it's still sad to see that there are still people who call themselves "Americans" who would answer "no"

 

Yes you can have a fair trial, even if the vote is not fair.

By showing the evidence to the people. Let the people decide if it was a fair trial or not and we'll eventually get the fair outcome.

So you believe that pre-judging is "fair". I disagree.

But it makes no difference that they pre-judge if all the evidence is shown. Because the evidence will show the people whether that pre-judgement was warranted or not.

 

No, I don't believe pre-judging is fair. But if one side pre-judges, then it is fair to expect or have the other side pre-judge. Why is that so hard for you to understand. I know, you think it's fair for the Democrats to pre-judge, but totally unfair and perhaps evil if the Republicans do exactly the same thing. This is why I totally dislike both major parties and their party animals they breed. I or my party can do it, but you and your party can't.

 

Two issues. Whether you call quid pro quo a crime or not, it is not always a crime to get something in exchange for something else. Second issue, no one so far as said they heard Trump say he would deny aid, unless the complied..

 

The democrats were prejudging before Trump took office.

 

Yes.

 

Some of us can see a con man from way off.

 

It really isn’t about prejudging. I’m sure that all of the Senators are aware of Trump’s wrong doing. I’m sure that all of those Republicans coming to Trump’s aid on the news shows know that they are lying to the American people. It is about exposing the facts to the people. I’m sure if John Bolton and some of the others were to testify in the Senate, that Trump’s disapproval could jump as high as 60%. Trump will still have the authoritarian limit of 37%, but that is enough that it may turn some politically vulnerable Republican Senators against Trump. Especially after his blunders in Syria and Iraq.

 

Do you think that Trump has anything to with it? He just signed what they put in front of him.

For the USMCA, the House discarded what the president gave them and instead made the modifications to NAFTA that Democrats had wanted all along, like worker and environmental protections. It is not Trump’s deal, it is a House Democratic deal. Pelosi had more of a hand in it than Trump did.

In a way, you can say she played him, played him good. Here is a bill where Pelosi had the chance to install Democratic ideas of worker and environmental protections, even as the Republicans and the Trump administration sought to discard such protections in every corner of American life. Trump didn’t get what he asked for. But then Trump is a bit of a bimbo. He doesn’t know enough to know what a good deal is, or not. Or even what to ask for. He was unable to work with the legislature to guide the legislation to his agenda. He just dumbly smiles and signs whatever they put before him.

 

No idea what you mean by "fair". The only unfair thing is abusing the power to hide information and witnesses. If the evidence is made public, nothing else matters.

 

Yep only Evidence counts to bad you don't have any.