In light of the mounting evidence, Trump's impeachment is a foregone conclusion.

For a loud mouth who demanded support for the troops, Hamilton couldn’t be bother going to war. Left the fighting for other people.

Veterans wrote:

For a loud mouth who demanded support for the troops, Hamilton couldn’t be bother going to war. Left the fighting for other people.

Avoided fighting in WWII.

Draft dodger and a welfare queen. Always the loud mouths, lots to say but nothing to contribute.

NativeSon wrote:

My 2cts wrote:

Trump supporters = either advanced idiots or evil

They are not evil.

I find you opinions on life in Kenya interesting. That said, are not you somewhere in Kenya's highlands? What do you know about Trump supporters?

All that's really going on here is the Dems claiming you don't get to investigate corruption if one of their presidential candidates is involved. That's how it's going to play out, and if you expect otherwise, prepare to be bitterly disappointed.

Even if you're deranged enough to think they're right, the best they'll get is shot down quickly in the senate, and then their candidate's corruption stays front and center during the campaigning, starting with his primary opponents, who won't vote for him in the general election after the Dems coronate him as they did with Clinton.

If Pelosi had any sense she would have taken Schiff's chair away, but now she's stuck in a slow death spiral.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You need evidence to support the requirement of an investigation.

You don't actually. All you need is reason to be suspicious.

That's evidently all you need, with your capacity for delusion that has no factual basis. But an investigation by agencies of the state - and particularly by a state of which the subject is not a citizen - requires formal legal grounds with a factual basis. That is why no US agency (or the Ukraine) is investigating the Bidens - there are no grounds, with no evidence.

But those rules don't apply if you live in an autocracy (or pseudo-democracy like Putin's Russia) where those in power do whatever they want. Apparently, you - like Trump - would be more at home there, with your less than marginal understanding of democratic rights and processes.

#4 is absolutly true. Joe was speaking at a convention and admitted it several years ago. It's on Youtube. Look it up. #3 has everything to do with Biden because his son was the one being investigated because of #1 and #2.

Hamilton Hand-outs they call them wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You need evidence to support the requirement of an investigation. No one has come up with any. You should go back to turning the sods on your farm. That you understand.

And accepting government hand outs, now that something he and his old man really know about.

Hand-outs? That has to be half the country. But if we are really concerned about dodgy business practices look no further than Trump Inc. It gets a bit rich for someone of Trump's record to be looking to paint someone else with the same dubious brush - and requiring a foreign government to help him do it.

Bad Wiggins believes that Trump was interested in investigating corruption not getting dirt on his opponent. Bad Wiggins believes that Trump didn't illegally stop payment to get Ukraine to start and publicly announce this investigation. However a number of witnesses testified this did happen. Bad Wiggins thinks it's ok that Trump fought the truth being revealed at every turn and lied repeated to the American people. Bad Wiggins believes most Americans think like him and don't care if the president lies and breaks laws. But we do care.

Bad Wigins wrote:

All that's really going on here is the Dems claiming you don't get to investigate corruption if one of their presidential candidates is involved. That's how it's going to play out, and if you expect otherwise, prepare to be bitterly disappointed.

Even if you're deranged enough to think they're right, the best they'll get is shot down quickly in the senate, and then their candidate's corruption stays front and center during the campaigning, starting with his primary opponents, who won't vote for him in the general election after the Dems coronate him as they did with Clinton.

If Pelosi had any sense she would have taken Schiff's chair away, but now she's stuck in a slow death spiral.

That is a Republican lie. Actually Biden bragged about getting rid of a corrupt Ukraine prosecutor that a number of international groups wanted gone because he did not investigate corruption.

Spirit Runner wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

#4 is absolute bullsh*t. Please provide a link that makes you believe Biden said that. It wasn't in the video. #1 and #2 are irrelevant and #3 had nothing to do with Biden.

#4 is absolutly true. Joe was speaking at a convention and admitted it several years ago. It's on Youtube. Look it up. #3 has everything to do with Biden because his son was the one being investigated because of #1 and #2.

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-49800181

"Mr Trump and his supporters allege Mr Biden abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy company."

"But these allegations have been widely discredited. There is no evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden."

Exactly! But there is overwhelming evidence that Trump illegally withheld needed money from Ukraine to force them to act in a way to benefit trump personally.

This is simply what happened. Trump supporters are doing back flips to pretend this didn't happen.

It's sad to watch them.

Well.....this wrote:

Bad Wiggins believes that Trump was interested in investigating corruption not getting dirt on his opponent.

What he was "interested" in is irrelevant. What matters is what he did - push to investigate corruption. If the Bidens didn't want to find themselves in the crosshairs of that, they shouldn't have been corrupt.

You don't get a pass for international corruption just because the president is your political opponent! Totally delusional. No different than thinking you can get away with running a meth lab by running for county sheriff. It doesn't matter if the sheriff is glad to have the opportunity to be rid of you.

It's beyond absurd, and it's not gonna work. Admit to yourself the GOP is unanimous against it and it's DOA in the senate. The real purpose, if any, was to recreate the mass psychosis of Russiagate and make the Dem base more pliable to general nonsense. The specific agenda will be revealed in the parallel news narratives originating from the same sources.

You are naive as well as dumb. There was no corruption to investigate - and none shown now. No US law enforcement agency was investigating the Bidens because there was nothing for them to investigate. The Ukrainian leadership had no reason to investigate the Bidens either so Trump tried to use the lever of cutting off promised military assistance - illegally - to get what he wanted. But he has no interest in fighting corruption - it is, after all, his modus operandi. Trump's goal was to smear Biden by having a foreign leader say publicly that he/his son was being investigated. Like Comey and Hillary's emails, it would have been enough to fatally sabotage Biden's electoral prospects. It is a disgraceful move by a disgraceful President - and dumb*sses like you have fallen for it.

Quid Pro Quo is seen as normal practice for politicians/government by a lot of Americans. And generally they are right. It's the details that go over their heads and are illegal IF a promised investigation was solely for political gain.

Alan

The issue is abuse of power and what would constitute such an abuse by a President of the US. It is not the exercise of a quid pro quo, as such, that constitutes the abuse of power, because that can be part of a legitimate bi-lateral trade agreement, for example, or a disarmament agreement. You give something in exchange for something. But there are times when it is clearly wrong. As follows.

The key issue relating to abuse of power is the President seeking the involvement of a foreign power in US elections. That was of course the subject of the Mueller/Russia probe - was there foreign involvement (yes) and was there complicity or collusion by the Trump administration (Mueller has ultimately left that Congress to decide). If Congress were to conclude there was collusion then that is an impeachable offence.

And that brings us to the Ukraine. In pressuring a foreign government to investigate the Bidens Trump has sought to use a foreign power to influence US presidential elections, by having them smear one of his political rivals. Inviting foreign intervention in US electoral processes is an abuse of trust in his office - and it is made worse by his doing so for personal political gain. Where the quid pro quo is illegitimate is his effectively saying to the Ukraine that military aid promised them will only be delivered in return for a public announcement from then that they would be investigating the Bidens. He is little more than a mobster making deals. He won't break their legs if they shaft a political opponent for him.

Is there actually a law that says a US President can’t enlist the help of a foreign government in promoting his campaign, as long as the actions of that government are law-abiding? IMO he’s not manipulating the election result in an illicit way unless he does something to the votes themselves. There is no reason a foreign government can’t propagandize to US voters. The voters are responsible for what they believe.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

Is there actually a law that says a US President can’t enlist the help of a foreign government in promoting his campaign, as long as the actions of that government are law-abiding? IMO he’s not manipulating the election result in an illicit way unless he does something to the votes themselves. There is no reason a foreign government can’t propagandize to US voters. The voters are responsible for what they believe.

Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution, which refers to "high crimes and misdemeanours". This doesn't have to be a breach of the criminal code; anything that is seen as an abuse of power or betrayal of trust in the presidential office is impeachable. Involving a foreign power in the outcome of an election to gain personal advantage is an abuse of power and a betrayal of the voters; in a sovereign state it is the voters' right alone to decide who they should elect as their government. This is established constitutional interpretation. The Founding Fathers framed "high crimes and misdemeanours" because they didn't want foreign government deciding their elections.

Any foreign interference (such as spreading disinformation to voters, as Russia did in 2016) in another nation's election is objectionable, but to invite or even compel that interference (as Trump sought to do with the Ukraine) becomes grounds for removing a President from office.

12:41 P.M. — Rev. Franklin Graham slams the impeachment hearing in a Facebook post:

It’s a day of shame for America. The media is calling the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry “historic;” and it is—historically shameful. That our politicians would bring this kind of harm to our country over a phone call, with the world watching, is unbelievable. As Christians, as those who follow and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, let us pray throughout the day and all of these proceedings. Pray for our nation, pray for our leaders, and pray for President Donald J. Trump.

true facts wrote:

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/public-hearings-dont-make-this-impeachment-drive-any-less-of-a-farce/

Trumpster propaganda. Anything to avoid the truth. There is a gangster in the White House, extorting "deals" from a foreign government to smear and thereby discredit a political opponent. It is indefensible so the Republicans have to lie about what it means.