There is no valid reasoning for what he did. Do you conservatives not care about our country a, constitution, and government model? Serious question because you all put trump ahead of those.
That is your opinion, also you keep with the "care about your country" which is rich coming from someone who for almost 4 years has done nothing but discredit our democratically elected president and also argue for a dismantling of democracy.
Also, it´s strange you are ok with Biden doing similar things.
It's not opinion. It's fact.
Guess what...…..I'm exercising my constitutional right to denounce the criminal in chief. He's voided his time as president by breaking laws.
What has Biden done? There is no evidence he did anything. Stop believing the garbage coming from trump's mouth.
Saying it, again and again, does not make your opinion a fact.
Good, and so im I and many others who did vote for Trump and if Warren gets to be the democrat nominee will vote for him again.
And what has Biden done? come on don´t play games when you know it.
Why do you look at polls when all the polls where wrong in 2016 massively?
1. The 2016 polls were not wrong. The 2016 polls on average were correct. In fact they were highly accurate.
2. To accurately gauge public opinion, and then discuss it. Most Americans currently want Trump impeached and removed. I can say this with a very high degree of certainty as the average of pollsters gives a similar number to Gallup.
Career diplomat George Kent told congressional investigators in his closed-door testimony this week that Rudy Giuliani asked the State Department and the White House to grant a visa to the former Ukrainian official who Joe Biden had pushed to have removed when he was vice president, according to four people familiar with Kent's testimony.
Kent told congressional investigators the State Department had objected to the request, and State did not grant the visa. Giuliani, Kent said, then appealed to the White House to have State reverse its decision. Shokin's visa was never granted, although Giuliani eventually spoke with Shokin over Skype.
They really wanted the Biden conspiracy theory to be true, lmao.
Ok, I am convinced now Zaryia, let's get rid of the justice system and judges and just have polls dictate how we convict people because if a poll says something it must be true.
Career diplomat George Kent told congressional investigators in his closed-door testimony this week that Rudy Giuliani asked the State Department and the White House to grant a visa to the former Ukrainian official who Joe Biden had pushed to have removed when he was vice president, according to four people familiar with Kent's testimony.
Kent told congressional investigators the State Department had objected to the request, and State did not grant the visa. Giuliani, Kent said, then appealed to the White House to have State reverse its decision. Shokin's visa was never granted, although Giuliani eventually spoke with Shokin over Skype.
They really wanted the Biden conspiracy theory to be true, lmao.
Career diplomat George Kent told congressional investigators in his closed-door testimony this week that Rudy Giuliani asked the State Department and the White House to grant a visa to the former Ukrainian official who Joe Biden had pushed to have removed when he was vice president, according to four people familiar with Kent's testimony.
Kent told congressional investigators the State Department had objected to the request, and State did not grant the visa. Giuliani, Kent said, then appealed to the White House to have State reverse its decision. Shokin's visa was never granted, although Giuliani eventually spoke with Shokin over Skype.
They really wanted the Biden conspiracy theory to be true, lmao.
Yawn..... another "hearsay"
6 damning sworn Testimonies Corroborating with each other. Confirming portions of the Text messages(which are not hearsay) and credible WB Report. On top of the Transcript which is not hearsay. As well as 2 of them admitting it on camera.
Why do you look at polls when all the polls where wrong in 2016 massively?
1. The 2016 polls were not wrong. The 2016 polls on average were correct. In fact they were highly accurate.
2. To accurately gauge public opinion, and then discuss it. Most Americans currently want Trump impeached and removed. I can say this with a very high degree of certainty as the average of pollsters gives a similar number to Gallup.
Really?
I have a hard time finding any poll in 2016 that was in favor of trump. the first result i got on google was a site realclearpolitics election 2016 and everybody had clinton winning besides one rare instance.
This was my google search : trump vs hillary poll 2016
If i got to google image i couldn't even find a single one in favor of trump.
It was heavily known that polling failed hard after the election.
So i dunno where you got that info from. but trump was in general seen as the loser in any polls. That's why those outlets where all shocked that trump won it.
But that's not just in the US its also in europe they always are heavily wrong with outcomes yet people keep asking because they need something to talk about.
Then u got a 52% number outcome which honestly doesn't tell u much other then a large part of the population wants trump gone and also a large portion want trump to stay. To hyperfocus on 2% that are honestly absolutely questionable to overthrow a elected president feels like completely alien to me.
What i also don't understand is why try to boot trump out when 2020 is just around the corner anyway? Just vote then. if it was 2016 i could understand it because its still 4 years and a long time, its almost 2020 already. Seems kinda useless.
@Gatygun: You apparently don't understand how statistics work. Statistics predict the chance that a certain event might happen, if that event happens despite is chances being low it doesn't mean statistics were wrong, it means the outcome was an outlier. Most polls gave Clinton about a 70% chance of winning, which means they gave her a 30% chance of losing. That just means that the actual outcome was the less likely one, not that the statistics were wrong.
Career diplomat George Kent told congressional investigators in his closed-door testimony this week that Rudy Giuliani asked the State Department and the White House to grant a visa to the former Ukrainian official who Joe Biden had pushed to have removed when he was vice president, according to four people familiar with Kent's testimony.
Kent told congressional investigators the State Department had objected to the request, and State did not grant the visa. Giuliani, Kent said, then appealed to the White House to have State reverse its decision. Shokin's visa was never granted, although Giuliani eventually spoke with Shokin over Skype.
They really wanted the Biden conspiracy theory to be true, lmao.
Yawn..... another "hearsay"
6 damning sworn Testimonies Corroborating with each other. Confirming portions of the Text messages(which are not hearsay) and credible WB Report. On top of the Transcript which is not hearsay. As well as 2 of them admitting it on camera.
Keep the evidence coming! I love it.
First, you do not have 6 damning, you have 2-3 hearsay, 2 ambiguous and does not equitably go the way you want it to go, and then you have in total 6 circumstantial statements that would not even hold up in a grand jury despite a grand jury would indite a ham sandwich.
What you, again and again, seem to forget is that this might be enough for an initial investigation but as you can see, no one in the senate has turned from not, to guilty.
Why do you look at polls when all the polls where wrong in 2016 massively?
1. The 2016 polls were not wrong. The 2016 polls on average were correct. In fact they were highly accurate.
2. To accurately gauge public opinion, and then discuss it. Most Americans currently want Trump impeached and removed. I can say this with a very high degree of certainty as the average of pollsters gives a similar number to Gallup.
Really?
I have a hard time finding any poll in 2016 that was in favor of trump. the first result i got on google was a site realclearpolitics election 2016 and everybody had clinton winning besides one rare instance.
First, you do not have 6 damning, you have 2-3 hearsay, 2 ambiguous and does not equitably go the way you want it to go, and then you have in total 6 circumstantial statements that would not even hold up in a grand jury despite a grand jury would indite a ham sandwich.
What you, again and again, seem to forget is that this might be enough for an initial investigation but as you can see, no one in the senate has turned from not, to guilty.
Trash opinion from someone who does not hold a legal degree. Experts disagree with you, as always.
We now have several damning sworn testimonies from career officials all corroborating each other. Several statements in each which corroborate the credible WB Report. Several which corroborate the damning Text Messages (which are not Hersey). And all of it confirming the most damning evidence of all, the phone call transcripts.
That's so much evidence. I'm happy that next week even more evidence will come.
First, you do not have 6 damning, you have 2-3 hearsay, 2 ambiguous and does not equitably go the way you want it to go, and then you have in total 6 circumstantial statements that would not even hold up in a grand jury despite a grand jury would indite a ham sandwich.
What you, again and again, seem to forget is that this might be enough for an initial investigation but as you can see, no one in the senate has turned from not, to guilty.
Trash opinion from someone who does not hold a legal degree. Experts disagree with you, as always.
We now have several damning sworn testimonies from career officials all corroborating each other. Several statements in each which corroborate the credible WB Report. Several which corroborate the damning Text Messages (which are not Hersey). And all of it confirming the most damning evidence of all, the phone call transcripts.
That's so much evidence. I'm happy that next week even more evidence will come.
Excuse me? you have zero clues what I have. Also, experts if you knew anything about the legal world you would know that you can find 100 who agrees with me and 100 who disagrees, it´s why there is a need for lawyers. Also if you want to play that game, maybe you should stop debating this topic then since you have zero legal knowledge and if I recalll you were not even at uni yet.
And again, no we do not have several daming "swon testimonies" Also you seem to forget that this "evidence" need to convince 67 senators to vote for removal. And do you really think Republicans will follow what people on the far-left say?
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be directly backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG and several career officials alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter. Much less the fact we already have this all confirmed via the Texts and Transcripts, and now on Camera. Neither of which are "but teh heresy". The multiple sworn corroborating testimonies just confirm those things several times over. And yes, that counts as evidence.
This is like that time you said Russia did not interfere for several years, and tried to tell me you were superior citation than the 8 Intel Agencies.
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter with your 0 expertise.
You want citation
"Legal experts say Trump’s call with Zelensky, in which he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter and may have implicitly tied foreign aid money to the request, may not have violated the letter of the law. “That would be politicizing law enforcement investigations and particularly politicizing a foreign law enforcement investigation for personal political gain,” says national security lawyer Bradley Moss. “I don’t know if the law has quite caught up to that idea, because we haven’t really contemplated the notion.”"
legal experts told TIME that it would probably be tricky to point to any specific law broken in the conversation, especially given the President’s broad powers to conduct foreign policy under Article II of the Constitution. Multiple experts in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials to further business deals, said this situation likely wouldn’t apply, because it doesn’t involve payment to an individual government official and isn’t for business purposes. Questions over whether federal bribery statutes were violated would turn on proof that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, and whether an investigation into Biden would be considered “anything of value” under the law.
So no all you are saying is reciting what you hear from "legal experts" on the left instead of actually looking for legal expertise in the right places.
Why do you think we have a supreme court or a court with "republican justices/judges" and democratic judges or why do you think we have courts? You seem to run on one track here, you cite "lawyers on the left" who have been brought on by people on the left who vet these lawyers so they know they will come to the conclusion they want.
case-law is not black & white and you cannot read a certain conclusion from the law´s text. You need a court to determine which direction to go in.
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter with your 0 expertise.
You want citation
That's literally just talking about the transcript (not all the evidence that came afterwards which corroborate the WB report), which several legal experts already disagree with your quote:
Here Are 7 Crimes Trump Might Have Committed in This Ukraine Scandal
But plenty of legal experts say the evidence against Trump and his team is far worse than the DOJ’s rose-colored view, especially when it comes to campaign finance law.
The 4 possible crimes in the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower scandal, explained
That said, it’s nonetheless important to know if the president and his associates broke the law. I spoke with four legal experts about the developments in the whistleblower scandal so far. Based on those conversations and other analysis that’s been published so far, four areas of federal criminal law could be troublesome for Trump, Barr, and Giuliani based on what we know: statutes dealing with campaign finance, bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice.
Legal Experts Respond to ‘Sordid’ Trump-Ukraine News: If You Won’t Impeach Now, When?
The tenor of reaction to the Biden-Ukraine report, however, has legal experts–even more moderate voices–suggesting the time is ripe for impeachment–and if it doesn’t happen now, it probably never will.
Consensus Grows that Ukraine Scandal Is Impeachable Offense
“This is impeachable now,” congressional expert and historian Norm Ornstein tweeted Friday evening. “Right now.”
On Twitter, former officials and legal experts argued this scandal cannot become just another Trump news cycle.
When you combine this with the text messages and the testimonies (both evidence, both which your link does not talk about), it paints a much worse picture and you get even more people confirming the above.
P.S. Btw does this mean you accept the fact Trump actually did all this as the WB Report, Texts, Transcript, and Testimonies state, and are now debating if it was illegal/impeachable or not? I'm glad you are now back in reality.
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter with your 0 expertise.
You want citation
That's literally just talking about the transcript and not all the evidence that came afterwards, in which several legal experts already disagree with your quote:
Here Are 7 Crimes Trump Might Have Committed in This Ukraine Scandal
But plenty of legal experts say the evidence against Trump and his team is far worse than the DOJ’s rose-colored view, especially when it comes to campaign finance law.
The 4 possible crimes in the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower scandal, explained
That said, it’s nonetheless important to know if the president and his associates broke the law. I spoke with four legal experts about the developments in the whistleblower scandal so far. Based on those conversations and other analysis that’s been published so far, four areas of federal criminal law could be troublesome for Trump, Barr, and Giuliani based on what we know: statutes dealing with campaign finance, bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice.
Legal Experts Respond to ‘Sordid’ Trump-Ukraine News: If You Won’t Impeach Now, When?
The tenor of reaction to the Biden-Ukraine report, however, has legal experts–even more moderate voices–suggesting the time is ripe for impeachment–and if it doesn’t happen now, it probably never will.
When you combine this with the text messages and the testimonies (both evidence, both which your link does not talk about), it paints a much worse picture and you get even more people confirming the above.
No, they are talking about what Trump may be "charged" with not about the transcript alone.
Also, your own citations are ambitious about it, "might" "possible" ect....
Go read up on what the experts actually are saying, because no one is saying "here is the smoking Gun" this is not nor has any new discoveries been the smoking gun.
But we have to leave this at agree to disagree, and let´s leave it with a question for you, Do you really think enough republican senators will vote Guilty? or wait don´t answer because I know it will "But they have to because 52% says so"
No, they are talking about what Trump may be "charged" with not about the transcript alone.
I'm just saying, your article's date is before the mind blowing Texts, the CREDIBLE WB-Report public release, Mick's admitting, and any of the incredibly damning testimonies. Not nearly the amount of evidence to go on to determine such things. We didn't know a fraction of the scope of this incredibly corrupt operation.
But we have to leave this at agree to disagree, and let´s leave it with a question for you, Do you really think enough republican senators will vote Guilty? or wait don´t answer because I know it will "But they have to because 52% says so"
Yes, I will I'll agree to disagree that the debate is now whether it is legal/impeachable or not. We can debate that. I do not think Senate will remove, they are a CULT at the moment, unless public opinion goes over 60% I do not see them budging.
BUT the debate is no longer if it happened or not. It did happen. This was our initial debate. Trump did try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden, and several career insiders knew it was for 2020. This I will not "agree to disagree on", since I have eyes and ears.
We're on the new goal post of "bu bu teh legal??".
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be directly backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG and several career officials alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter. Much less the fact we already have this all confirmed via the Texts and Transcripts, and now on Camera. Neither of which are "but teh heresy". The multiple sworn corroborating testimonies just confirm those things several times over. And yes, that counts as evidence.
This is like that time you said Russia did not interfere for several years, and tried to tell me you were superior citation than the 8 Intel Agencies.
I think we need a statistical model that can tell us the probability of Jac actually being Rudy Guiliani.
I'm just saying, your article's date is before the mind blowing Texts, the CREDIBLE WB-Report public release, Mick's admitting, and any of the incredibly damning testimonies. Not nearly the amount of evidence to go on to determine such things. We didn't know a fraction of the scope of this incredibly corrupt operation.
Yes, I will I'll agree to disagree that the debate is now whether it is legal/impeachable or not. We can debate that. I do not think Senate will remove, they are a CULT at the moment, unless public opinion goes over 60% I do not see them budging.
BUT the debate is no longer if it happened or not. It did happen. This was our initial debate. Trump did try to get Ukraine to investigate Biden, and several career insiders knew it was for 2020. This I will not "agree to disagree on", since I have eyes and ears.
We're on the new goal post of "bu bu teh legal??".
The date of the Time article does not matter, you are trying to avoid the polar bear in the room here, the "evidence" you say is all around the actual phone call and does not provide any smoking gun.
The actual phone call is what may or may not get Trump impeached not the opinions of ambiguous texts which you read one way and 100 read another.
And the debate has always been about the evidence and the legal side, The question was Did Trump ask for a QPQ and did he withhold aid to make sure Biden´s son was investigated.
Nothing so far has put those words into Trump's mouth, what is on the table is a "general" debate about corruption herein IE Cloudstrike and Biden
You don't have citation. That's for sure, since everything you are saying on this matter is nonsense and can not be directly backed up.
I'll take the words of the ICIG and several career officials alone over anything you'll ever say on this matter. Much less the fact we already have this all confirmed via the Texts and Transcripts, and now on Camera. Neither of which are "but teh heresy". The multiple sworn corroborating testimonies just confirm those things several times over. And yes, that counts as evidence.
This is like that time you said Russia did not interfere for several years, and tried to tell me you were superior citation than the 8 Intel Agencies.
I think we need a statistical model that can tell us the probability of Jac actually being Rudy Guiliani.
Of course, I am Rudy
I am an 80-year-old man who spends some of his precious time on Gamespot because that is what 80-year-old men do.
you are trying to avoid the polar bear in the room here, the "evidence" you say is all around the actual phone call and does not provide any smoking gun.
You should keep up with the 3 weeks of collected evidence. It seems like you haven't read any of it. The evidence is no longer all around the actual phone call, which in itself was incredibly damning. Several portions of the troves of new evidence describe events and dealings before and after the phone call, which are just as bad if not worse. This include's Micky Mouse's admitting of a QPQ, which almost all testimonies and text messages and WB Report all conveniently state as well. By god, why does ALL evidence match?
We now have evidence in the form of direct text messages (directly stating so), on video admittance (directly stating so), and several corroborating sworn testimonies that this pressure was going on behind the scenes as well. All of which heavily corroborate the Whistle Blower report, which the ICIG found credible twice.
This event did happen. That is a debate the GOP has lost after all the evidence came out, and have now moved to the new goal post of if it is impeachable. I am willing to have that debate with you, but not a debate on if it happened or not. I do not peddle in alternate reality.
@Jacanuk said:
not the opinions of ambiguous texts which you read one way and 100 read another.
This isn't true. The texts objectively do count as evidence for impeachment and are INCREDIBLY damning/damaging. They directly state what was going on, if the obvious transcripts and WB Report was not enough.
Are you ESL? That's the only way the texts can be seen as ambiguous. Do not take this is an insult because I'm bewildered at this claim and I've only see you make it. It's very possible you are simply not a native English speaker.
Either that or:
@Jacanuk said:
Nothing so far has put those words into Trump's mouth, what is on the table is a "general" debate about corruption herein IE Cloudstrike and Biden
Yes. We are aware his only focus was into proven fake conspiracy theories on the DNC and Biden to help his 2020 bid (as shown in Texts/Testimonies/WBR). When asked about anyone other than Biden he wanted an investigation on he could not name anyone. In all of corruption for Ukraine only one fake instance on Biden and zero Ukrainians? LMAO! Also we have agencies that look into this stuff, he avoided asking them and instead formed his little corrupt shadow group to do it. The DOJ straight up came out and said no one asked them to look into this stuff.
Every single testimony (and text) of the Diplomats and Ambassadors who were there made it clear it was about 2020, as there was no actual corruption being looked into other than an objectively fake Biden conspiracy theory. This resulted in the CREDIBLE WB Report.
TLDR: On the debate of whether it happened or not: You've got nothing to go on, I've got quite a bit of citation so far. Nadda. Zilch. Just an arm-chair theory saying all my citation is fake, which is laughable considering the ICIG's words alone discount any opinions of yours. Funny how it always works this way between us, one side w/ countless data and the other essentially with "nu uh".
Now every Republican has to bow down and bend the knee to the mighty democrats.
Also, let´s get an accurate number and also let´s get one thing straight, it´s among the independents, not republicans who remains pretty much stable at 14% the support for a fake impeachment is growing.
Indeed, this is worse than Nixon's impeachment polling at the same point. Certainly not good.
@Jacanuk said:
Now every Republican has to bow down and bend the knee to the mighty democrats.
No, it will take more than 54% to make the GOP Cult change their minds and "bend the knee" to a majority of Americans.
@Jacanuk said:
Also, let´s get an accurate number and also let´s get one thing straight, it´s among the independents, not republicans who remains pretty much stable at 14% the support for a fake impeachment is growing.
1. Okay so in posting that old data, you're admitting a majority of this country wanted impeachment even 2 weeks ago (the numbers have went up since then)? And there was an uptick for all 3 groups. Thanks for that poll data and proving my point.
2. You can't just randomly put the adjective "Fake" in front of things you don't like. Not without factual citation proving so. It doesn't work for Trump it won't work for You. This impeachment process is factually real, and will likely result in the 3rd impeachment in US history. And with an easy majority of Americans. Doesn't get much more "real" than that.
Indeed, this is worse than Nixon's impeachment polling at the same point. Certainly not good.
No, it will take more than 54% to make the GOP Cult change their minds and "bend the knee" to a majority of Americans.
1. Okay so in posting that old data, you're admitting a majority of this country wanted impeachment even 2 weeks ago (the numbers have went up since then)? Thanks for that poll data and proving my point.
2. You can't just randomly put the adjective "Fake" in front of things you don't like. Not without factual citation proving so. It doesn't work for Trump it won't work for You. This impeachment process is factually real, and will likely result in the 3rd impeachment in US history. And with an easy majority of Americans. Doesn't get much more "real" than that.
No, this is not worse than Nixon´s impeachment polls. Facts are not on your side here.
If we look at the avg. poll data which is the "most accurate" 49.4% is for the impeachment of Trump. At the time of Nixon´s supreme court judgement, over 60% was for.
Also, only 12% of Republicans are for the impeachment of Trump, which is way lower than Nixon who at the time of his final days had less than 22% overall approval rating.
1. No again a majority is not for impeachment, 49.4% is not a majority.
2. Fake is meant in regards to this so far is an unfounded impeachment, again we have had this debate and i know I can´t convince you despite even your own links are speaking mostly hypotheticals "possible" etc....
Also as to this leading into the 3rd impeachment, we will have to see how the Republicans feel when Pelosi thinks it´s time to pass on the buck to the senate and call for a vote. Because this will all come down to two things, the actual evidence and if it´s like now ambiguous and hearsay and "opinions" about how something is and why something was done. Which will be seen by your side as one thing and by republicans as another it will not get Republicans to turn..
Because unless the poll data moves away from around 12-15% it will not get republican senators to turn on their voters because you can be 100% sure that if they do not have ironclad evidence that is equivalent to Trump standing with the gun over the dead body, they will be thrown out of office in 2020 if they vote for impeachment/removal.
And on the other side, if the house votes for impeachment just to have it thrown out in the senate, it will cost them in 2020.
@Jacanuk: What is considered ironclad defence in a case where his supporters don’t believe the incriminating and/or stupid things Trump say? Where any evidence presented is met by a deep state conspiracy?
Indeed, this is worse than Nixon's impeachment polling at the same point. Certainly not good.
No, it will take more than 54% to make the GOP Cult change their minds and "bend the knee" to a majority of Americans.
1. Okay so in posting that old data, you're admitting a majority of this country wanted impeachment even 2 weeks ago (the numbers have went up since then)? Thanks for that poll data and proving my point.
2. You can't just randomly put the adjective "Fake" in front of things you don't like. Not without factual citation proving so. It doesn't work for Trump it won't work for You. This impeachment process is factually real, and will likely result in the 3rd impeachment in US history. And with an easy majority of Americans. Doesn't get much more "real" than that.
Because unless the poll data moves away from around 12-15% it will not get republican senators to turn on their voters because you can be 100% sure that if they do not have ironclad evidence that is equivalent to Trump standing with the gun over the dead body, they will be thrown out of office in 2020 if they vote for impeachment/removal.
Are you kidding? You actually believe Trump standing over someone with a smoking gun wouldn't still end up with these men out on their asses if they tried to hold Trump accountable by a base who will never, ever turn on him? Trump is a cult, the worse he does, the more his base buckles down and loves him. They will support him no matter what, and if you haven't seen that by now you've not been paying attention.
Don't be naive enough to believe that any degree of wrongdoing by Trump would nullify the threat to the Republicans who would attempt to oust him and would then still be held at the mercy of a base that is so past the point of reason it's hopeless. Republicans are fucked either way. They don't have ironclad proof, they act against him, they lose, they do, they act against him, and they STILL lose.
@Jacanuk: What is considered ironclad defence in a case where his supporters don’t believe the incriminating and/or stupid things Trump say? Where any evidence presented is met by a deep state conspiracy?
Any evidence that can prove someone is guilty above 90-95% is ironclad and nothing that has come out so far in regards to Ukraine and Trump would even meet a civil burden.
@MirkoS77 said:
Are you kidding? You actually believe Trump standing over someone with a smoking gun wouldn't still end up with these men out on their asses if they tried to hold Trump accountable by a base who will never, ever turn on him? Trump is a cult, the worse he does, the more his base buckles down and loves him. They will support him no matter what, and if you haven't seen that by now you've not been paying attention.
Don't be naive enough to believe that any degree of wrongdoing by Trump would nullify the threat to the Republicans who would attempt to oust him and would then still be held at the mercy of a base that is so past the point of reason it's hopeless. Republicans are fucked either way. They don't have ironclad proof, they act against him, they lose, they do, they act against him, and they STILL lose.
What's the issue?
Of course, you have the die-hard deepspace nuts who no matter will believe that this is a big democratic conspiracy but if you want to "convict" trump you only have to convince up to 2/3 majority which included´s some senators in areas where they are in their seat because of the moderate Republicans and independents.
Log in to comment