President Trump

[Zarathustra]

That is literally what Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate. Whether or not you think it's true is irrelevant.

Do you hear the hypocrisy in your own question? That is not literally what Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate -- whether you think it's true is irrelevant.

So what did he want them to investigate? He mentioned firing the prosecutor. What else was there (re: Biden)?

There cannot be, on any rational plane of existence, any credibility to that accusation about Biden. Because it requires that

So in other words, your mind is completely closed on the issue. We already knew that. Hence my description, "incurious."

(a) Joe Biden had to believe that his son was being investigated (he wasn't)

I already provided evidence, quotes, from the prosecutor himself who said that the entire board was going to be questioned, including Hunter Biden, prior to his firing. His firing stopped that.

(b) And that the investigation would uncover illegal activities (it wouldn't)

And you know this how? The corporation was notorious corrupt. Your ability to know the future is truly unparalled.

(b) That Joe Biden would believe that the BEST AND EASIEST way to protect his son was to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor (it wasn't)

As per the evidence that I've already provided, firing the prosecutor stopped the investigation.

(c) That Joe Biden then imagined that he could pressure Ukrainians to remove him by withholding aid

They admitted that this pressure worked. Again, I've already provided evidence.

(d) That he then went to the Administration with a plan to do this

His plan to protect himself did not necessarily require revealing his motivations. He had some cover in the fact that others already wanted the prosecutor fired. But even if he did confide in Obama, it's not impossible that Obama would also want the matter hushed up quickly.

(e) And the Administration accepted this plan, for no other reason than Biden wanted it.

You can't imagine any other reasons why Obama would accept it? You don't think he was invested in stopping the Republicans from winning the White House 2016?

(f) That Biden then went to the IMF and several other world organizations and conviced them of his plan

Not necessary. We don't have to ask permission to withhold aid. Did Trump ask permission in the Dems' scenario for the same thing?

(g) And they were convinced to join his plan.

See above.

(h) And then Biden went back in time to create a fake documented US Administration policy to fight corruption in Ukraine so that it looked like it had been ongoing for a while.

Not necessary. If the anti-corruption had been ongoing, it provides the perfect cover.

Occam's razor suggests that your are sticking to your alternate facts in the face of real facts in a desperate bid to protect a corrupt president.

I haven't presented any alternate facts, just facts. Again, I didn't say Biden was guilty, just that there was an obvious conflict of interest and an appearance of corruption, which necessitates an investigation.

Even if everything you say is true about the unlikelihood of Biden being corrupt, do you honestly think that Trump agrees with you? Do you think it's beyond the realm of possibility that he actually thinks Biden is guilty? And if he did, then wanting to investigate Biden IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMS WANT TO DO TO TRUMP, except they want to take it beyond investigation to actual removal from office. I don't understand why you can't see that point. (Maybe it's the closed-minded thingie mentioned above.)

[wayfriend]

I didn't fail to notice that the rebuttals you posted weren't rebuttals, except the ones based on alternate facts.

(c) That Joe Biden would believe that the BEST AND EASIEST way to protect his son was to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor (it wasn't)

As per the evidence that I've already provided, firing the prosecutor stopped the investigation.

Case in point. I made a statement about what Biden would have had to have thought before he did anything. Your rebuttal is not about that at all.

This is why you are a troll. Not because I disagree with you. But because you argue for the sake of being annoying to anyone who tries to make a point that YOU DISAGREE WITH. I am happy with my post, it doesn't need defense.

[Zarathustra]

I didn't fail to notice that the rebuttals you posted weren't rebuttals, except the ones based on alternate facts.

On the contrary, I shot every point you had out of the water. It wasn't even hard.

(c) That Joe Biden would believe that the BEST AND EASIEST way to protect his son was to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor (it wasn't)

As per the evidence that I've already provided, firing the prosecutor stopped the investigation.

Case in point. I made a statement about what Biden would have had to have thought before he did anything. Your rebuttal is not about that at all.

That's simply not true. Look up there. You said, "(it wasn't)." [I put it in bold type for emphasis.] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I took this to mean that you were claiming that the best and easiest way to protect his son wasn't to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor. I countered that claim by pointing out that it worked just fine. THEREFORE since Biden's actions had the alleged effect in question, one cannot conclude that it would be unlikely for him to believe that his action would have had this effect. Now, I'm not saying this proves he DID believe his action would have this effect, I'm just saying that your point is wrong, i.e. you can't eliminate this belief out of hand. On no "rational plane of existence" can you know what Biden thought. You're speculating, eliminating possibilities out of hand without any foundation for such an elimination. If firing the prosecutor easily stopped the investigation (it did), on what basis can you assert that Biden would not believe that this would be an easy way to stop the investigation (and hence: protect his son from questions, which also protects him from embarrassing news stories in the future, when he might run for President himself)?

My point was directly spot on. Your inability to connect one logical point to the next, following it to the implicit conclusion, and see the relevance to your own, does not make me a troll. If you'd quit trying to find reasons to mock/denigrate me, and spend more time thinking about my points, you wouldn't embarrass yourself when I have to spell it out to you like a child. You're smarter than this.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We are impeaching the President for threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine in order to bully it into a personal favor, that favor being an investigation into the Vice President threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine in order to bully it into a personal favor.

You are incorrect in your assessment here. No one is impeaching Trump; instead, they are only talking about impeaching Trump. Those are two different things altogether.

There is only one reason we know who is testifying before Schiff's committee, some of the details of who is asking questions, what questions they are asking, and the general idea of the testifying person's answers--Schiff is leaking the details to the media. The reason he is leaking this information is so that he can control the narrative and it make it seem as if his committee has damning information on Trump. As I have noted before, every time you see a news story citing an unnamed source, an anonymous source, or a person "who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media", that means one and only one thing--the reporter in question is just making shit up. In this instance, we have a lot of news stories where people are just making shit up.

The Democrats cannot afford for impeachment to make it to the Senate. If it does, then Republicans will control the questioning, the narrative, and the flow of information getting out to the public--that would be an utter disaster for them. Besides, in a trial before the Senate the Chief Justice of of the Supreme Court presides and they cannot control or influence him.

Today is 29 October 2019 and Trump has not yet been impeached.

[Skyweir]

How is this not clear? Theres an impeachment inquiry .. its not talk .. its an investigation in progress which from the get go has included 47 GOP representatives.

Yet it has been flagged as being undertaken in a veil of secrecy ... from the Pubs .. which is total BS. It would appear it is being conducted according to the established protocol. I dont see any credible issues with the process.

I dont really see the push back here ... the POTUS abuses the power of his office, not just this once.

Even in the Mueller Report .. Mueller recorded 13 counts of Trump obstructing of justice. But we are seeing a clear pattern with Trump.

He sought foreign states, plural to investigate a US citizen ... indeed to interfere in the US national domestic election. Again.

[Zarathustra]

OMG Sky, let me know when you make a post worth paying attention to. That would be great.

[Gaius Octavius]

Adam Schitt has zero credibility, and he's seriously creepy looking.

[Skyweir]

And Trump is a paragon of virtue and non creepiness?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Once again, this is nothing other than a naked attempt by a small cabal of Democrats who wish to overturn the valid results of the 2016 election. Trump wasn't supposed to win, so there's been a Star Chamber attempting to set things right.

Now it's become clear that there's no one in the Democrat primary race that can beat him. So it's all about damaging him and making him appear corrupt. It's not working.

In order for the House to impeach, there's a bunch of vulnerable Democrats in Red districts who'd have to vote for it. That's far from a lock. Going through with this puts the Dem House majority in jeopardy, and frankly the party can't afford that.

Keep it up and the GOP will run the entirety of Congress again next year.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How is this not clear? Theres an impeachment inquiry .. its not talk .. its an investigation in progress which from the get go has included 47 GOP representatives.

Is there an actual impeachment going on in the full House, on the record and in front of everyone for the world to see? No? Then it is nothing but talk.

I need to reiterate this point: the reason the Democrats in the House do not want to impeach Trump is because if they are successful then the process moves to the Senate, where the Democrats would not be able to control the process or the flow of information. As things stand right now, Schiff can leak what he wants to from his closed-door, off-the-record committee meetings which gives him the ability to control the information getting out. In the full Senate, Republican Senators would be able to question anyone they want to in any way they want to, and the questioning could go in any direction at any time just like the Mueller Investigation did. It could incorporate the Bidens, Fusion GPS, Strzok, DNC staffers hacking their own servers, and so on and so forth.

The best option the Democrats have for removing Trump is to front a decent candidate, stop attacking each other, and try to win 270 electoral votes. Speaking of electoral votes...if Democrat wins in 2020 you will see lots of Democrats coming out and praising the Electoral College for keeping our republic secure from mob rule.

[wayfriend]

Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday will begin building a formal political process designed to impeach a President -- a momentous task attempted only three times before in nearly two and a half centuries of US history.

The Democratic-led House Rules Committee will sit at 3 p.m. ET to consider a resolution on the scope and regulations of an inquiry into whether President Donald Trump misused his authority by seeking political favors from Ukraine.

The meeting, ahead of an expected full House vote Thursday, is the first time the Democratic majority will go on the record in their attempt to oust the President -- and is also the first step toward open hearings. It could pave the way for the impeachment of Trump by the end of the year.

How did you think all the lame comments about Dems not really going to impeach Trump would end? A: the same bucket as Trump-didn't-request-an-investigation, there-was-no-quid-pro-quo, and not-for-Trump's-personal-gain.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

They are voting on the process, not impeachment. Still, they finally decided to pull their heads out of their asses and do something i stead of just talking about it.

What will it accomplish, though? Impeachment is only a slap on the wrist and the Senate will never remove him from office.

[Brinn]

Trump is a shameless, dishonorable, opportunistic egotistical, moron with a fragile ego. He is a liar and a cheat and is only concerned with how anything he does will benefit him or his reelection campaign. I'm largely conservative and I'm astounded that so many republicans are willing to defend this fool. I have no respect for Trump.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Trump is a shameless, dishonorable, opportunistic egotistical, moron with a fragile ego. He is a liar and a cheat and is only concerned with how anything he does will benefit him or his reelection campaign. I'm largely conservative and I'm astounded that so many republicans are willing to defend this fool. I have no respect for Trump.

Many Republicans feel the same way you do, Ms. Lebwohl included--they held their nose while they voted for a stinky candidate...but that stinky candidate was, to them, infinitely better than Clinton. I am not Republican, so I don't really have a dog in that fight, but I do oppose Democrats hence my position on Trump--he's an asshole but at least he isn't a Democrat.

Today is 30 October 2019 and Trump still has not been impeached. I will continue to update this until they get around to doing something about it rather than wasting hot air talking about it.

[Savor Dam]

I am not Republican, so I don't really have a dog in that fight, but I do oppose Democrats hence my position on Trump--he's an asshole but at least he isn't a Democrat

There are two "until such time..." propositions here.

First proposition: If you oppose Democrats, until such time as there is a viable alternative to the existing two-party dynamic, you are at least tacitly approving Republican candidates and positions. Again, there isn't a viable alternative at this point.

I don't have a problem with that, even if I don't entirely agree. I, too, voted for who I felt was the lesser skunk in 2016, having learned the third-party lesson in 1980 with John Anderson. I've been party-fluid at the top of the ticket at least since 2000 when I found Senator McCain more palatable than Governor Bush, Vice President Gore, or Senator Bradley.

Don't get me started about our Gracious Concierge (then a Florida resident) voting for Nader in 2000...

Second proposition (and in-line with Brinn's points): Until such time as Republicans take a clear-eyed look at where we are and how we got here, remaining in lockstep behind Trump is going to be an increasingly marginal position. Yes, he might manage to get re-elected through the sheer incompetence / extremes of the opposition, but who believes he will cease to self-destruct in a second term?

[Zarathustra]

Trump is a shameless, dishonorable, opportunistic egotistical, moron with a fragile ego. He is a liar and a cheat and is only concerned with how anything he does will benefit him or his reelection campaign. I'm largely conservative and I'm astounded that so many republicans are willing to defend this fool. I have no respect for Trump.

There is a difference between objecting to Democrats' hypocrisy and power grab, and defending Trump. And there is a huge difference between defending him (especially against baseless allegations) and defending all the negative qualities you've outlined above. I think he is narcissistic and has a fragile ego (the two go hand in hand), but the rest of your list is debatable. i don't defend anyone being dishonorable, liar, cheat, etc. I can understand not liking him. But I love how he pisses off the Dems. That's probably my favorite thing about him.

Regardless, I honestly do not think he should be impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's potential abuse of power, conflict of interest, bullying an ally into firing a prosecutor who was investigating his son's employer. In fact, I think it stinks to high heaven that his son got this position in the first place. Getting to the bottom of Biden's potential corruption is in itself a good thing for the country, and it doesn't matter if it ALSO helps Trump. If it was not wrong for Obama to ask Ukraine to investigate Trump's campaign manager during the 2016 election, then this isn't wrong, either. [Cue WF . . . "You lie!!!"]

[Skyweir]

Be nice to get to the bottom of it all and uncover the truth and corrupt actions of all.

Trump has placed his own head in the noose. Crims very often do that of their own accord. Usually because of stupidity and believing they could never be caught.

I of course appreciate where Brinn is coming from with his comments. Its a thing Ive long struggled with re Trump. His tendencies to the moronic, the inane. That is a stand alone irritation with Trump. I see his smack talking his opponents on his campaign trail yet another, not just his political opponents but even public servants and members of his own administration. No doubt the cause of his incessant staffing losses and high turn over rate.

He is not a good manager of people or business. Yet he claims to be all things to all people.

If any POTUS is worthy of impeachment its Trump. And its not just this Ukraine phone call ... a number of witnesses now have confirmed his quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine.

Vindman has backed up testimony that the so called transcript of the 25 July phone call was lacking key sections and has identified a number of issues with these absences.

Giuliani has gone dark ... probably finally a wise move on his part.

The very fact that Trump talked about Baghdadi the very way he did ... risks radicalising lone wolf ISIS activists and actions. A very concerning dilemma to be sure.

He was quite capable of announcing Baghdadis death, as evidence of US superiority and power without all unnecessary gloating.

In fact a thanks to former Kurdish US allies re the Kurd who went undercover to identify Baghdadi and his location would have been a positive touch ... even at some point down the track.

[Avatar]

Trump is a shameless, dishonorable, opportunistic egotistical, moron with a fragile ego. He is a liar and a cheat and is only concerned with how anything he does will benefit him or his reelection campaign. I'm largely conservative and I'm astounded that so many republicans are willing to defend this fool. I have no respect for Trump.

Nice to see you around Brinn.

Yeah...I actually have much less problems with many (although not all) of his policies than I do with his actual personality and character. I'm not offended by much, but damn he offends me.

--A

[TheFallen]

As lots have said, there is no logical paradox in on one hand thinking Trump is a narcissistic egotistical moron and on the other, choosing to give him one's support. It is indeed all about picking the lesser skunk - and as I've repeatedly maintained, the Dems should be utterly embarrassed by their inability to come up with an alternative who simply and solely needs to come across as "a bit less crap than Trump". That is an incredibly low bar to clear and quite possibly the lowest of all-time... and yet the Dems still can't do it. That's pathetic.

Brinn's point above is reasonable. Leaving aside the swivel-eyed and fanatical, why aren't more reasoned conservative-leaning US voters pitching in to take a swing against Trump? It's not as if there isn't a whole heap of things - being added to every day by every tweet and every press conference - for which he could be entirely justifiably criticised?

This IMV comes down to the trench warfare/pantomime/white hat vs black hat mindset that seems now to be permanently ingrained in US politics. While you've got the Dems allowing their own messaging to be ever more dominated by the Prog Left and simultaneously refusing to put their own house into any semblance of credible order, it is perhaps understandable for Pub supporters to get sucked into the opposition's endless tactics of only ever slating the other side (whether with or without justification) and simply never bothering to look in the mirror.

Bottom line? Trump and his behaviour would attract a lot more criticism from within his own support base, if there were to be a less ridiculous, less extremist, less hypocritical and more viable opposition.

But that shows no signs whatsoever of happening any time soon, which makes Trump a shoo-in for 2020 in my view.

Again... Dems? What the living fuck are you doing? You can't even get seen as a valid alternative to Trump? Yes, Trump of all people, FFS. Shame on you.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

... a number of witnesses now have confirmed his quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine.

The transcript of the phone call does not.

Remember how it was, "the beginning of the end" every other week during the Russiagate investigation? Nothing there. There's been nothing there with every made-up scandal regarding Trump. The House may impeach, and if it does, it guarantees a Trump victory in 2020, as well as makes the GOP's chances of retaking the House far better.

Dems are playing Trump's game, they're no good at it, and it's going to cost them what little power they have.