Impeachment megathread Part 2

[Person Man]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

[gottsu]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

If Trump Administration members or the President himself would like to appear before the inquiry under oath and explain why this is all just a big misunderstanding, they have an open invitation. After all, if the President did nothing wrong and the phone call was the most perfectest phone call since Bell's invention, what could they possibly fear? Even if the process is a totally biased sham kangaroo court partisan railroading, they can clear things up for the American public.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

Are you freaking kidding me? Withholding aid to a ally country that is in a war in order to get them to announce an investigation into a political rival is not “just a phone” nor is it “petty”. It’s about as gross abuse of power that a president can do

[Person Man]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

Are you freaking kidding me? Withholding aid to a ally country that is in a war in order to get them to announce an investigation into a political rival is not “just a phone” nor is it “petty”. It’s about as gross abuse of power that a president can do

Don't say that. It can get worse.

[They not like us]

Nadler is running a great hearing so far and the GOP interrupting witness testimony is a bad, bad, bad look.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Who told Doug Collins that the best strategy was to act like a immature douchebag?

[DINGO Joe]

Who told Doug Collins that the best strategy was to act like a immature douchebag?

Probably Devin

[GeorgiaModerate]

Who told Doug Collins that the best strategy was to act like a immature douchebag?

Collins is (regrettably) my Congressman.  That's his regular personality.

[SteveRogers]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and needed to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings were too petty for that.

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

How to you propose that presidents be punished for breaking the law if not by impeachment?

[Storr]

Who told Doug Collins that the best strategy was to act like a immature douchebag?

Jim Jordan, probably.

[pbrower2a]

He just said "irregardless".

[LBJer]

I’m getting a bad feeling with Schiff and Pelosi both not committing to impeachment today

The Democrats win several different ways, but all depend on either ousting the President or making Congressional Republicans look bad for defending  his corrupt, dishonest, erratic, and despotic conduct solely for partisan ends. Schiff and Pelosi have surely decided upon impeachment, and  the question is now of timing -- basically to ensure maximal damage to Trump and the .GOP.

Republicans can quash impeachment in the House quickly and with little difficulty with a strict vote on partisan lines. But even if Trump is not removed he will go down to defeat (the majority of Americans are better than he is), taking Republican members of both Houses of Congress with him.

The ultimate impeachment of this horrid President will be by the American electorate, as will be the ultimate censure of Republicans up for re-election eleven months from now.

You mean "Republicans can quash impeachment in the Senate..."--that is, by not convicting.  Republicans are outnumbered in the House.  

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

This Turley guy is a moron.

[BlueSwan]

Are you freaking kidding me? Withholding aid to a ally country that is in a war in order to get them to announce an investigation into a political rival is not “just a phone” nor is it “petty”. It’s about as gross abuse of power that a president can do

Yeah, this is about as clear cut as it gets. I don't see how anybody sane could argue that what Trump did was in any way acceptable. Republicans would demand hanging at dawn if it had been the other way around.

[Nyvin]

Are you freaking kidding me? Withholding aid to a ally country that is in a war in order to get them to announce an investigation into a political rival is not “just a phone” nor is it “petty”. It’s about as gross abuse of power that a president can do

Yeah, this is about as clear cut as it gets. I don't see how anybody sane could argue that what Trump did was in any way acceptable. Republicans would demand hanging at dawn if it had been the other way around.

Also they have to assume what they decide to do will set precedent on what is acceptable by future presidents.   

If Republicans just acquit Trump,  they'll have to accept that it's okay for a future Democratic president to solicit bribes from foreign governments for personal gain too.

[riceowl]

Is anyone going to point out that the Republicans’ cravenness in refusing to vote against trump is Evidence that this isn’t a bipartisan impeachment so it’s not worth pursuing is really insanely circular logic?

Sorry that sentence went a lot of places.

[gottsu]

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

If Trump Administration members or the President himself would like to appear before the inquiry under oath and explain why this is all just a big misunderstanding, they have an open invitation. After all, if the President did nothing wrong and the phone call was the most perfectest phone call since Bell's invention, what could they possibly fear? Even if the process is a totally biased sham kangaroo court partisan railroading, they can clear things up for the American public.

But, especially in light of current presidential powers and duties (which were largely enhanced even since FDR, but also by Dick Cheney's "unitary executive doctrine" last decades) do the president must, literally, must comply with Congress and American public in a case like this and any other? I think no. 
Richard Nixon said "when the president does it, that means, that it is not illegal" not without reason.  Congress became too weak to get a president accountable and to keep him honest at least since FDR - the best examples are LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin incident and Reagan's Iran-contras affair. Second Gulf War of Bush 43 is also a good example of how the president can outmaneuver Congress and the American public opinion. Donald Rumsfeld played by Steve Carell in "Vice" was saying that Congress "is the biggest deliberative body on earth" also not without reason.

Unpopular opinion coming:

I think that this impeachment is a "sham" indeed, as Republicans say in some ways. A political sham. Just like Clinton impeachment. It's all being motivated by pure politics, the simply disregard of Democrats of Trump, just like 20 years ago by disregard of Clinton by Gingrich and GOP.

Remember when Newt Gingrich was calling Clintons "counterculture McGovernicks" and insinuated that 25% of Clinton's WH staff are drug addicts? Or by blaming Democrats for "the moral decline" of America which started in 60s when Democrats ruled USA and the aftermath of it was Susan Smith case in 1994?

He created a monster he couldn't stop, and that monster beat him in 1999, when he was forced to resign from speakership. The same with Trump and Democrats. Pelosi had been over a long time under a lots of pressure by the fellow Democrats and Democratic electorate "to get" Trump in some way (impeachment is one of them), simply because lots of Dems doesn't like current American president. And in September the dam had collapsed - there were so many Democrats appealing that impeachment proceedings should start that Pelosi had no other choice, although we all know how she opposed it in the past. The monster was being created again.

To back my thesis that these two impeachments were purely political, I can say that Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton over a blowjob and Democrats want to impeach Trump over a one telephone call (in which we don't know the exact course of it). OK, they both broke law and need to be punished, but not by impeachment, their wrongdoings are too petty for that.  

Look at the report of Schiff's committee - it's 300 pages of waffle. If one of the major "bombshells" in it has to be https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/1201943221674401792/photo/1 in that tweet, then I can only say that Mueller report is much more damaging to Trump, but public opinion forgot about him within a week or two since it was released.

That phone call compromised the security of an American ally.

Just like Monica Lewinsky's blowjob compromised the Oval Office. Think of the scale.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1202059045865172992

The biggest high treason in the political history of US. In which the major evidence are the non-word-by-word (!) excerpts of a phone call. I am playing the devil's advocate in here.

Are you freaking kidding me? Withholding aid to a ally country that is in a war in order to get them to announce an investigation into a political rival is not “just a phone” nor is it “petty”. It’s about as gross abuse of power that a president can do

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

Nadler is running a great hearing so far and the GOP interrupting witness testimony is a bad, bad, bad look.

When I started to watch this, I immediately switched TV channel in the beginning of GOP's opening statement. That GOP guy (Doug Collins) just yelled, shouted and openly lashed out at Democrats, it was nothing to be taken seriously.

[Nyvin]

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Is anyone going to point out that the Republicans’ cravenness in refusing to vote against trump is Evidence that this isn’t a bipartisan impeachment so it’s not worth pursuing is really insanely circular logic?

Sorry that sentence went a lot of places.

You're a Republican in Congress. What do you do?

1. Vote for impeachment/conviction and lose your job in 2020
2. Legitimize the process, vote to acquit, and watch a blue tsunami of competitive districts flipping
3. Circle the wagons, get everybody on the same page, and repeat the same talking points in unison, everywhere, no matter how feeble they might be?

The GOP is doing exactly what I would expect them to do.

[Cinemark]

The Barron outrage might be one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen come from the right-wing twitter sphere.

[riceowl]

Is anyone going to point out that the Republicans’ cravenness in refusing to vote against trump is Evidence that this isn’t a bipartisan impeachment so it’s not worth pursuing is really insanely circular logic?

Sorry that sentence went a lot of places.

You're a Republican in Congress. What do you do?

1. Vote for impeachment/conviction and lose your job in 2020
2. Legitimize the process, vote to acquit, and watch a blue tsunami of competitive districts flipping
3. Circle the wagons, get everybody on the same page, and repeat the same talking points in unison, everywhere, no matter how feeble they might be?

The GOP is doing exactly what I would expect them to do.

Expected, of course. Absurd, more so.

[gottsu]

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

When we compare that evidence to the evidence of Nixon or Clinton, it looks flimsy to me indeed. Sorry. The evidence of Mueller is speaking to me more.

I know that some judge said last time "presidents are not kings" - but in the reality they are kings, if they weren't kings they wouldn't be saying Nixon's famous words or Dick Cheney wouldn't have invented (with Antonin Scalia) "unitary executive doctrine" and not comply with Congress because they simply can.

You can say "This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law" to John Doe, but not to a American president since good few decades.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Think of the scale. I am saying it again. We don't have big, really "overwhelming" (like they wrote in Schiff's report) evidence to back these impeachment claims, just the excerpts of that phone call. Ken Starr wrote precisely how, when and where Lewinsky was giving a blowjob, and there was her skirt covered in Clinton's sperm, we had "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) and Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon's tapes in Watergate, and now, we have "I would like to do us a favor" (not said word-by-word) and it's mostly all we have in Trump's impeachment inquiry. Democrats are playing pure politics now. Trump should be impeached not for this, but for Russian collusion in 2016 elections. Mueller got that "overwhelming" evidence, which Schiff couldn't. But even if, Mueller said that he is not able to state if the dealings of 2016 were exactly a "collusion".

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more.   Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about.   This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

When we compare that evidence to the evidence of Nixon or Clinton, it looks flimsy to me indeed. Sorry. The evidence of Mueller is speaking to me more.

I know that some judge said last time "presidents are not kings" - but in the reality they are kings, if they weren't kings they wouldn't be saying Nixon's famous words or Dick Cheney wouldn't have invented (with Antonin Scalia) "unitary executive doctrine" and not comply with Congress because they simply can.

You can say "This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law" to John Doe, but not to a American president since good few decades.

Sorry, but this is a stupid argument.  Presidents may want to act like kings, but they are NOT kings.  Just because they attempt to assert additional power beyond the level to which they are entitled, that does not make the extension of power legitimate.  Impeachment is a defined Constitutional mechanism to place a check on such executive overreach.