Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why It's Fallacious!

Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why Its Fallacious!

STOP: BEFORE YOU CONTINUE READING

1. Take a deep breath

2. Be intellectually honest

3. Be prepared to have your views change based on evidence and sound argument.

4. No seriously, don't continue until your rage boner is gone, and you're ready to look at this objectively.

With that out of the way, lets dive into the key points of contention offered by republicans during the first day of hearings on the possible impeachment of Donald Trump, and why you shouldn't find them compelling given the testimonies themselves, and the entirety of the circumstances.

1. "Ukraine got the aid"

One of the republicans first counter arguments was that an extortion of military aid to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky could NOT have occurred because said military aid was finally sent, and subsequently Zelensky did not follow through on a "quid pro quo" demand to publicly announce investigation into the Bidens.

This is a fallacious point to raise, because it is irrelevant to whether or not an abuse of power took place. As an analogy, if you show up to a bank with ski masks and a gun only to find an empty vault, it doesn't matter that you technically didn't steal anything. You had criminal intent and you would be justly arrested and imprisoned the same as if you had made it home with bags of cash.

This concept of being arrested for failed crimes and conspiracy to commit crimes still applies in the political sphere and still applies to the president because NO ONE is above the law in this country.

Just so you're still with me, just because the aid was received, and just because Zelensky was ultimately not forced to embarrass himself by caving to the presidents demands on national television, does not change what the Trump tried to do which was extort a foreign ally for his personal gain. It was a failed crime, but a crime it still was.

Thats a wall of text to some people and i appreciate you reading it, so here's a kitten

Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why Its Fallacious!

Thats adorable, now focus because we're moving on to the next counter argument.

2. "This is all hearsay!"

Not really. This is much more than merely what Bill Taylor and George Kent heard. They are corroborating an admission of criminal activity on live television, by white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney who said quote "We do this all the time...get over it." In regards to a question of whether or not a quid pro quo occurred.

Mick Mulvaney refused to testify. Donald Trump refuses to defend himself under oath and everyone with first hand knowledge of what is going on in the white house has defied congressional subpoenas to share what they know. In context of this stonewalling, which you may recall how well that tactic worked for Richard Nixon in the end, congress has put forward two extremely credible, nonpartisan witnesses to corroborate Mulvaney's "slip of the tongue" admission. With more witnesses to come as the hearings go forward.

You know what? You're doing great! So I'll tell you what, let's finish up with the third counter argument and then more kittens! Yay😸

3. Red herrings

Lets define "Red Herring"

Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why Its Fallacious!

Red herrings are an attempt to distract from the real issue, and there were a lot of red herrings from republicans during the hearing. We had wild tangents to what Obama did or did not get accomplished a decade ago, to a long string of questions about Hunter Biden, whether he could speak Ukrainian, and other off topic nonsense that Bill Taylor had to repeatedly remind republicans he knew nothing about.

These red herrings are calculated questions designed to get their base supporters and base supporters of Trump to foam at the mouth and stop listening to the actual point of the impeachment hearing. Its a tactic that only works on stupid people, and republicans are betting their careers on the American people being stupid. Dont prove them right.

And thats My take. As promised, kittens!!!!

Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why Its Fallacious!

I just want to say thanks for reading with an open mind. Politics is either boring or infuriating to most people and i appreciate you sticking through to the end. Even though this will inevitably turn into a conduit for cancer, if just one person read this and thought "maybe i should watch the hearing to see for myself." Then im happy😊

Peace y'all!

Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why It's Fallacious!
24
2
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • nightdrot
    Yes but...

    Just to start, I am a Republican former House staffer - who worked for a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment. Nevertheless I am no fan of Mr. Trump and did not vote for him

    My sins confessed, as to the strength of the case against the President. It is debatable. There is a case to be made and the President - the volume of whose rhetoric is inversely proportional to his powers of articulation - would have been better off had he merely steered clear of mentioning Mr. Biden altogether. "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

    1) That said, it is unclear what principle the Democrats are articulating. Foreign aid is one of the tools that give the United States diplomatic leverage. Moreover such aid is made with US tax dollars. Thus the President is not without warrant, should he learn that such aid is being misused and there is at least some suspicion of corruption involving Americans, in using the leverage such aid affords him to ask a foreign government to look into the matter.

    To assert otherwise is to, in effect, give any potential - note, "potential" - political opponent of the President effective immunity from criminal investigation forever and anon. (Not to mention retrospectively criminalizing every President's foreign policy since George Washington.) That would be a very odd precedent to say no more.

    In a standard court of law, as things stand at the moment, the President would likely win on the basis of the "reasonable doubt" standard. A man is presumed innocent unless he can be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Suffice to say, there are reasons to doubt the Democrat's argument.

    2) There is a US national interest in how that aid is used and whether it has been diverted to corrupt purposes or purposes otherwise not consistent with US national interests. I know of no way to separate the national interest from the President's interests in that connection.

    3) There is no definition of a President's political opponent in a statutory context. Mr. Biden - to this very hour - is not his party's nomination nor may he ever be so. Unless you want to define every person who might possibly maybe consider running against an incumbent President as a "political opponent," you have no clear legal standard on which to make a charge against the President.

    4) Alternatively, if you wish to so define every individual who might run for President as the President's "political opponent," you effectively grant a blanket exemption to such individual's from any form of investigation by the US government, as well as effectively block the US from pressuring foreign governments from cooperating in such investigations.

    5) In this specific case, charges of a quid pro quo and bribery are problematic in several respects:

    A) Leaving aside some ambiguity in the language of the conversation, the request was made, the aid was released and no investigation ever took place. It is hard to make a charge where nothing was transacted.

    B) Charges of bribery and quid pro quo are contingent on the believe that one party was forced to deliver something it never otherwise would have. Given that the Ukrainian leader was elected on a platform of reform and fighting corruption, the charge would be hard to demonstrate. Certainly by any legal standard that would meet the "reasonable doubt" test.

    NOTE: Strictly speaking, in terms of an impeachment, the "reasonable doubt" standard need not be met, but the political realities are such that you will not get a conviction without meeting the standards of a lower court.

    CONT.
    Is this still revelant?
    • nightdrot

      Add it all up, and I do not see, based on current evidence, i. e. the phone call, a case for a violation of law let alone impeachment is problematic. Now note I am making a slightly different case then the one the House GOP is making - mostly because what I just wrote does not, as you can imagine, make for an easy soundbite in the social media age.

      Still and all, though, there is enough "gray area" here as to make impeachment, let alone conviction by the Senate, not really justifiable. It also not being helpful that when, yesterday, Ambassador Yavonovich was asked point blank by Rep. Chris Stewart if the President had committed bribery, she said "no" flat out.

      On such small things do the nexus of politics, law, procedure and the Constitution turn in an impeachment. It being recalled that it was Oliver North, and not the subsequent Walsh report legally clearing the President, that popped the impeachment bubble that time.

      P. S. Nevertheless, I want to compliment you on a well reasoned MyTake. Well above the average. I cannot agree, but an excellent argument.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for such a detailed response. I generally see where you're coming from, especially the bit about defining what constitutes a political adversary. there's some room for ambiguity and a skilled lawyer could possibly keep trump out of jail on this one if this were a criminal trial instead of an impeachment. You mentioned that ukraine did recieve the aid, and thats great but i adressed that counter in the mytake. All said though its cool that a former politician is on gag and decides to respond to me. Thanks👍

    • nightdrot

      Not at all. Although I do disagree with your points. I thought that your's was one of the most sober and intelligently written analysis I've seen on this site. (I gave the question a thumbs up, in fact.)

      Also, I was going to go more in-depth on the issue of the aid to Ukraine, but as you can tell I was already well over the 4,000 character limit and so opted to edit it out.

      Anyhow, thanks for your kind remarks to me and a real tip of the hat to you. I much prefer the sober and dispassionate analysis you provided to the hysteria that is so characteristic of the current culture.

    • Show All
  • Liam_Hayden
    Sorry, but Jim Jordan demolished the entire narrative in his questioning of Ambassador Taylor.

    And you are, of course, wrong about Mulvaney's statement. Strings aka "quid pro quo" are always attached to aid. That is not a crime. "Fight corruption like you promised." is not a crime. That idea is idiotic. In fact if there was any admission of a crime, it was this video of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold aid unless the Ukraine fired a prosecutor, a prosecutor who "just happened" to be investigating the dealings of the company for which Hunter Biden. Because of this video, even IF Trump had insisted on investigating Biden it would be constitutional under Article 2, Section 3:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
    Is this still revelant?
    • Anonymous

      Let me illustrate the difference between what biden did and what trump did. As George Kent explained, the anti corruption efforts in ukraine were part of our foreign policy plan. This included removing corrupt prosecutors and judges in ukraine. Joe biden did not withold aid for personal gain, like trump did in trying to help himself win re-election, he did it in accordance with our national interests. They went over that in impeachment hearing and both Bill taylor and George kent testified that joe biden was doing good work Ukraine as vice president. I watched the entire 6 and a half hour livestream, did you?

    • Girther10

      @myTake Owner- you say nothing about the whole point of bringing Biden up. His son was given a cool position in Ukraine that makes him a millionaire. It matters not whethe he’s “doing good work” in Ukraine. He’s doing good work for his family. These facts won’t change. The Dems are going to protect Biden no matter what. It’s a guarantee that they will lose any scraps of integrity laying around.

    • Girther10

      I watched every minute of the circus. It’s hard to believe you could come away with any feeling that justice abounds. It’s a circus.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girls

  • BlacklightShade
    It’s tiring to once agin go though so many points bullshit and shut down each lie, misdirection, and Trump masturbation fantasy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rY10nWdhGaw
    Is this still revelant?
    • Republicans have a simple strategy - get re-elected. They are sticking with Trump because they made their beds. They hope the MAGAidiots will keep them in office. They are spinning their conspiracy theories and "which hunt" mantras to sew doubt in the masses that don't pay attention to this shit. They follow Stalin's edict to repeat the lies over and over until people believe them.

      Republicans don't have facts on their side. Trump broke the law by bribing Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation. Period. Trump didn't actually want a real investigation (that's part of the testimony), he just wanted the appearance of a testimony. He did not ask for ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION (except Ukraine hacking, another Trump false conspiracy theory). He never once asked about any corruption (testimony). Appearance is all Trump ever had or really cares about. He made his infamous Ukrainian call the DAY AFTER the Mueller investigation was closed because AMERICA LET HIM GET AWAY WITH COORDINATING WITH RUSSIA.

      Republicans are attempting to sew doubt. They have stuck to the line that Biden really *was* worth investigation and Democrats are covering for him. They put on their phony faces and do the phony outraged yelling, but that's all they have. Stupid/uninformed people will believe them. Vile people will want to hurt the libs.

      Who wins with this? Russia. Russia wants Ukraine disenfranchised and no longer supported by the US so Russia can continue to land grab and sea grab from Ukraine. Russia wants Russia-friendly, oligarch-friendly, criminal-friendly puppet Trump to continue supporting the "Russia is really good" narrative and pro-Russia policies. Trump undermines US Intel agencies by saying "some fat guy in his mom's basement did the hacking" and "we need to look at how Ukraine hacked our election". Trump is doing everything he can to give Russia whatever it wants. I'll repeat: TRUMP IS DOING WHATEVER HE CAN TO GIVE PUTIN WHATEVER HE WANTS.

  • Lurdie
    Preach! I'm getting the weird vibe that the people are the diehard trump supporters im always reading about never meeting in person
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

022
  • SkipStop
    Sorry, but you can't change the facts thus can't change my mind. You obviously got this stuff from far left sources who have lied to you before Trump even took office. The whole impeachment thing is more complex than you think. There are many arguments that can be made against the left. Like having secret meetings in Mr. Sh*t's basement. A whistleblower who worked for Obama and is a long-time Democrat. Mr. Sh*t took what he said and brought it up. When Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify, Mr. Sh*t suddenly didn't want him to. Why? Because he doesn't want people to know who he is and what the truth is (even though we already know). Why is Me. Sh*t refusing to give Republicans right to equally participate in the debate back when it was private? Because he knows that this is a set-up and nit the truth. The transcript does not directly show what some call a "Quid Pro Quo". It can go both ways depending on how YOU want to hear it. The wording used makes this tricky. Also, investigating if Biden is up to no good is perfectly legal. Democrats spent 2.5 years investigating Trump. Was it legal? Sure. Same here. Also, you haven't noticed how Democrats are doing almost nothing good for the American people. Instead of planning their strategy and showing it to the public they focus on smears and attacks on Trump. It's a very stupid strategy. And majority ofonormal people have gotten sick and tired of all this. Also, this is not a bipartisan issue. It's very partisan. This is a clear tactic by Democrats to make Trump look bad. When this collapses, they will come up with another hoax just like the Russia thing.
    If you read credible news like Roll Call, Reuters, Associated Press, Washington Examiner, The Hill, USA today, then you will realize that you have been fed lie after lie from your far left sources like CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York, Times, and more.
    • goaded

      "... refusing to give Republicans right to equally participate in the debate back when it was private..."
      How was that, then? The 47 Republican members of the three committees (and their staff) were all entitled to be there, and those that were got the same time per party to ask questions.
      How was that not equal?

    • SkipStop

      @goaded Sh*t refused to let them participate. He interrupts Republican members of congress and does every dirty trick he can come up with to prevent Republicans from speaking.

    • Anonymous

      The reason he did that is because both democrats and republicans on the committee agreed that the first 45 minutes of the hearing would be for the majority leaders and or their counsels. Thats 4 people, schiff and majority counsel, Nunez and minority counsel. The republicans were interupting the agreed upon parliamentary procedure and thats why they got shut down.

      Its sucks doesn't it? When you dont know all the context and make yourself look like an idiot because of it? I feel for you dude... not really but its polite to say so.

    • Show All
  • genuinlysensitive
    I applaud your willingness to debate, but you don't understand the counter-argument very well. It is summed up by the evidence, and you did get to part of it, but just scratched the surface.

    2. "This is all hearsay!"The Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella, worked on the false Steele Dossier, was fired from the Whitehouse for leaking, and had no first hand knowledge. Hearsay.

    Fiona Hill also fired for leaking, wasn't even in the Whitehouse when the call occurred. Hearsay.

    Kent also heard it from a friend who... Hearsay.

    Taylor said he heard it from Sondland, and admitted under oath he never heard the call. Hearsay.

    Sondland said in his "revised" testimony he "presumed" that the aid was linked to investigations. Presumption.

    The only one who actually heard the call to testify was Vindman. In his testimony he stated that the transcript President Trump released voluntarily, confirmed by Zelensky, was "very accurate":

    "So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"

    "Yes," said Vindman."

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-democrats-have-a-col-vindman-problem

    Here is the Transcript of the call:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/427425025/President-Trump-Telephone-Conversation-with-President-Zelenskyy-of-Ukraine-Unclassified09-2019#from_embed

    As you can see, nowhere does Trump even mention aid. Zelensky himself said there was no bribery/quid pro quo:

    https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/

    His Minister also confirmed it, and contradicted Sondland that he (Sondland) told Ukraine the aid was "linked":

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

    The President did mention Biden though. Why? Because not only did Biden admit to threatening to withhold $1 billion in aid unless a prosecutor was fired (and implicated Obama btw), that was investigating Burisma Holdings, and its board members for corruption. One of the Board members was his son, Hunter Biden. So he used US taxpayer money to fire a prosecutor investigating his son. Quid. Pro. Quo. BRIBERY!:https://www.youtube.com/embed/urTk6O4c0mU
    • goaded

      You're right that much of the testimony is hearsay, which is why the people with direct knowledge were subpoenaed, but they've been blocked from testifying. Since there was one person who did have first hand knowledge, it's not *all* hearsay, is it?

      Furthermore, Vindman also said: "I think there are many people with many different views, and some people certainly do believe that it may not have. The reason I stick to my assertion is because I've watched this unfold over the course of months. Initially, just, you know, again, influencers in more remote -- more remote influencers in the form of Lutsenko and reporters, then Mr. Giuliani, then more significant influencers.
      And it nearly all culminated in this July 25th phone call."; this guy saw the whole iceberg, not just the tip that was the phone call.

      As to the allegedly unmasked whistle-blower, two things:
      I don't see any evidence they were ever fired.
      What does it matter who reported a crime being committed, if there's evidence of the crime?

    • @goaded Vindman himself said that the released transcript was "very accurate". He also said Ukriane felt no pressure to investigate, there was no quid pro quo just as President Zelensky said, and is supported by the "very accurate" transcript. He felt Trump said something "inappropriate and improper". This is what he wants the House to impeach on? Also, he stated that he "believed" there might have been Quid Pro Quo earlier, SEE PRESUMPTION. There is no crime being reported here, only in the media, and testimony from many people who had no knowledge only gossip, and no one ever makes up gossip...

      Meanwhile there are zero investigations into Biden and Obama, even though Biden admitted on tape, to the crimes Trump is being accused of, and implicated Obama in doing so.

      https://youtu.be/urTk6O4c0mU

    • goaded

      "Vindman himself said that the released transcript was "very accurate"."
      I appreciate that, and I'm much less concerned with the content of the missing parts of the phone call, now, but like I said, Vindman viewed the call through the lens of months of manoeuvring leading up to the event.

      Biden and Obama were working for the good of the country, and against corruption in Ukraine, leading to Ukraine meeting the anti-corruption conditions laid out by the US government well before the Trump administration put a hold on the aid. Nobody testifies on hearsay under oath.

      Speaking of testifying under oath (and GOP lies), the GOP witness, Volker, called by the GOP (who are now lying and claiming that he was a Democratic witness):

      Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why It's Fallacious!

      https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1196887394018058240

      Impeachment: The Republican Counter Argument, And Why It's Fallacious!

      How many times do you have to be lied to before you stop supporting this insanity?

  • winterfox10
    Okay, so I read all that with an open mind. I would ask for the same open-mindedness as you read my points:

    1. It's true that Ukraine getting the aid does NOT mean that the Trump Administration didn't attempt to collude in election sabotage, but if we talk about desired effects, and even your analogy of a bank robbery; the real concerns I have about the left's argument come front and center. The nature of military aid is such that once you give it to the other person, they can use it as they wish ("no shit, Winterfox," she says), but Ukraine has little to no reason to do something to upset the US with Russia breathing down the necks. If you read the phone call transcripts, it's tough to see where the alleged quid pro quo was even mentioned, and even if it was mentioned; Trump simply told Zelensky to follow up on the investigation into a pro-Russian oil company. The Ukrainians elected Zelensky specifically to get the Russians out of their government. Your analogy called for an empty bank vault, but the reality is that this is more like the cops agreeing to give guns to bank security guards so that they can afford to find a bomb (that the guards already know is in there) that was left by suspected jewel thieves in another robbery investigation that went cold. Investigating Biden's son wouldn't be an issue for Joe's campaign if three things weren't true (matters of public record, actually): 1, he hadn't actually used tax payer dollars to quash the investigation, and 2, if Joe hadn't been the one to deliver the money, and 3, if the American Left wing didn't claim to want international cooperation.

    2. I've no real objections here, aside from the question of whether or not you can call something obstruction of justice, if no crime was committed. The impeachment of Nixon didn't need testimony from Nixon's cronies; they could obtain material proof that showed his guilt. We still don't even know if Biden will be the Democrat nominee. If Biden can't secure party support, any alleged sabotage becomes a mute point for purposes of election tampering.

    3. The Red Herrings you brought up about things like Biden speaking Ukrainian are only distractions if you believe that the Ukrainian investigation (the crux of whether or not this is actually collusion) into Biden was made up. Joe paid off the old Ukrainian government with taxpayer dollars, we know this for a fact as it's a matter of public record. So, we have potential issues of the misappropriation of taxpayer money for private interests, we have issues of an elected American politician being engaged in foreign scandal (issues of character and fitness), we have issues of the Bidens' apparent alignment with Russian foreign policy interests. Depending on how far you want to go with this, we have a huge fundamental question about whether or not an entire political faction of the United States is in support of people who don't basically have American interests at heart.
  • Girther10
    I’m disappointed because you said you would change my mind to think you are right. If anything, it only re enforced my belief that this is a total sham. Your analogies are inept, to say the least. This is nothing like a failed bank robbery. Your inability to distinguish the huge difference explains why the rest of your “logic” is also flawed.
    Interesting mytake, technically well written..
    It failed on substance bigtime.
    Thank or allowing us to see how delusional some people can be.
    • Girther10

      By the way, I was already watching the circus on tv that you love so much. It’s like a cartoon.

  • Straight_Shooter
    If you are going to write this and expect anyone to take You seriously, at least have the integrity to own it by not going anonymous.
    • Anonymous

      My username is kungfucyborg. I only went anonymous because i have blocked a lot of people and i felt that this is a topic that id actually like to see if they take on honestly and adress with an open mind. My hopes are low, but there's your transparency.

    • Anonymous

      Do you have an opinion on the mytake itself? Or did you just want to know who i was?

    • I'm not interested in wading into political fights on here. I feel that both sides have too much invested in their opinions to thoughtfully consider information that contradicts their desired end result.

    • Show All
  • HungLikeAHorsefly
    I can't help but notice that very few of the responses here actually attempt to point out which of the things you've said are wrong, and why. That's somewhere between intellectual laziness and incompetence.
    • Let's look at the facts the transcript only shows that Trump asked for the Bidens to be investigated due to him believing there was corruption. It does not show a quid pro quo. Also even if he did do that which he did not it may go against the constitution but it is not an impeachable offense. The witnesses are all based on hearsay they is a fact. The president of Ukraine who is the supposed victim also says this never happened. So really what do the Dems have? Absolutely nothing.

    • goaded

      @OrderofKaos No, it showed that Trump asked for the Bidens to be investigated.

      There's a procedure to tackle corruption in foreign countries, and it involves treaties and law enforcement agencies, high level officials only get involved where there's obvious corruption at the highest levels.

      Other evidence, a huge amount, shows the quid pro quo. And if going against the constitution isn't an impeachable offense, what on earth is?

      The president of Ukraine is hardly likely to say he was pressured, is he? I would probably deny it if I was asked that about someone who'd threatened my children had done so, unless I knew they were perfectly safe.

    • goaded

      @OrderofKaos I see you blocked me, a sure sign of a good argument.

      You want to listen to Linsay Graham?

      “A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, in 1999.

      https://youtu.be/AOWF8SIALz8

  • MarkRet
    The Republican style of argument:

    "YOU'RE MEAN!!!"
    "It's not fair!!!"
    "I don't know"
    "What about Hillary?"


    Kind of on a five-year old level.
  • Somethingwittty
    Is anyone else tired of arguing over politics all the time? Can we just do away with most of the politicians in DC already?
    • Girther10

      Yes we can. Tell us how? And are you liking this mytake? That’s the point of is

    • Girther10

      Still waiting for something witty.

    • Girther10

      I understand your frustration, but really? Removing politicians from DC? That’s like removing water from the ocean.

    • Show All
  • goaded
    Amazing take, thanks! There's so much misinformation out there, and it takes an age to prove it wrong, by which time they're on to the next lie.

    If you have a few hours to spare, check out my opinion on https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/q3942054-was-there-a-quid-pro-quo-does-it-matter-if-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo
  • Jackpot777Returns
    The transcript of the call says it all. Asking about investigating corruption is not an impeachable offense. First Dems said oh there was a quid pro quo then they were proven wrong of course like always. Then they said it was extortion and it was bribery and neither of those apply either. I am just really sad that your brain is that clouded by hate to believe in this witch hunt.
    • Anonymous

      What do you think of Gordon Sondalnd saying definitively that there was a quid pro quo? Or fiona hill testfying that the irregular channel wasn't focused on national security but instead on "a domestic political errand"? Are you willing to eat crow and admit you were wrong?

  • Jamie05rhs
    Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. And the adorable baby cats.
  • Jersey2
    Wow, people like to write in this thread. It’s a witch hunt, all part of the “Resist” strategy announced in 2015 after Trump won. It has been consistently “resist” for three years, nothing new here... it’s all part of the plan.
  • Insomnia72
    As a straight guy is it okay to like cute kittens? Does it make me some closet homo? Just asking here...
  • Marriedwith2
    The truth never mattered to Trumptards... As long as he shares the same prejudices and cowardice they do, they'll justify him raping their children with smiles on their faces
    • zagor

      Nah, he's only interested in his own daughter...

  • Sabretooth
    who expected anything of value? i honestly tuned out when it was time for the republicans. after reading the transcript, watching the republicans on msnbc and the ring of fire, hearing about their blunders-i honestly didn't care what they had to say. and if this is any indication: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z8TNqnrDZLc... and this: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ejJojXVyG3A... there was no point.
  • October808
    Hoo boy after this farce is over, all these idiots who tried to take down a president with hearsay should be FORCED to lose their jobs.
  • OrderofKaos
    The Dems reasons for impeachment are simply delusional and this is why Lindsay Graham has already said the Senate is gonna shut this down completely when it reaches that stage. This is all a show for nothing at all to try and make Trump look bad in 2020 which it is doing the opposite because anybody with a brain can see this is a witch hunt. Witnesses who are not credible based on hearsay. Schiff promised several news outlets the whistleblower would testify now he refuses to let him. The Ukraine president also says there was no extortion or quid pro quo so what do the Dems even have? Absolutely nothing and are just simply using their hate of Trump to justify this.
    • goaded

      This Lindsey Graham?
      “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

      While I'm at it, Mitch McConnell:
      “Our nation is indeed at a crossroads. Will we pursue the search for truth, or will we dodge, weave and evade the truth? I am of course referring to the investigation into serious allegations of illegal conduct by the president of the United States — that the president has engaged in a persistent pattern and practice of obstruction of justice. The allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate, and ascertaining the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unqualified, unevasive truth is absolutely critical.”

      Just to remind you, Trump has blocked testimony from anyone he can.

  • DWornock
    Obviously, with you, fact don't matter; only your agenda
  • Anonymous
    Donald Trump? More like Donald Dump!
    DONAAALD DUUUUMP!!
  • Anonymous
    I'd sooner eat a fist full of glass and set myself on fire than be apart of whatever CNN fuled fever dream your caught up in. Face it... Your just scared that all your candidates wouldn't fair well against trump.
    • Anonymous

      CNN fuels the fever dreams? Ok then😂

    • Well it is not like CNN reports anything that is true. They lied about the kids in MAGA hates started all kinds of BS they lie about Trump on a regular basis Russian collusion that never happened and was proven to have never happened. Sad to think I used to actually watch CNN at one time.

  • Anonymous
    The real argument against impeachment, is that Biden publically bragged about doing the same to protect his son, and Hillary had Ukraine do the Trump dossier, which is also publically revealed.
    So if what Trump did was wrong, countless other politicians should go to jail first. We're in a precedent based system. If you prosecute that type of corruption, you'll have to prosecute it everywhere, and then Trump is very far back in line for being punished.

    And before you scream "fake news" at the Biden video recording and Hillary's published Ukraine dossier, compare it to the level of proof that exists against Trump.

    You can argue that Trump should be impeached, based on several other things he did, but in this Ukraine business, he objectively has a better case then the Democrats.

    You defeated the weakest arguments against impeachment, congratulations! but haven't even touched the only one actually being made, which is that the people who are trying to impeach Trump, are on tape admitting the same or worse, and if you don't want to see them behind bars, but want to impeach Trump, you're just being hypocritical, which in turn justifies Trump supporters to do the same.

    Besides it'll die in the Senate regardless, so what's even the point.
    • Girther10

      Well spoken. Kudos!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👊🏼

    • goaded

      "The real argument against impeachment, is that Biden publically bragged about doing the same to protect his son"
      No, he didn't. Pay attention. He got rid of a prosecutor who didn't prosecute corruption and lived beyond his government salary. He was working on behalf of the United States, the EU and everyone who wanted corruption gone.

    • Anonymous

      @goaded and also prosecuted his son. If you assume that those things aren't connected to give Biden the benefit of the doubt, you have to do the same for Trump or admit that your argument is hypocitical.

      Besides the very fact that his son is and was on several boards of companies he has no expertise in, is obvious corruption.
      (And if Biden thought he's innocent, his son wouldn't have stepped down from all those boards he shouldn't be on)

      The only defense Biden gave so far is that it's normal for politicians children to be on multiple boards. And yes that is true, but it's still massive corruption. Corruption being normal, doesn't excuse it.

      That's the thing. If you prosecute corruption, Trump was right to ask Ukraine for information. If you don't prosecute corruption, you have no case against Trump.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    So just to be clear: Pretend it is January 2016 and President Obama calls the Ukraine and asks for some dirty information on Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law) who is doing some shady business there. You would support Obama impeachment for that? Give me a break. That would be an honorable act (not impeachable) in left wing circles because any attempt to damage Trump is honorable from the left wing perspective.
    • Anonymous

      One of the main ways to remove bias in a given situation is to flip the parties involved. So if im consistent in my views, which i believe i am, why would suddenly make excuses for the undermining of foreign policy and national security if trump switched parties or if a democratic president did the same thing?

      The answer is that i wouldn't. Hypotheticals and thought expiraments are fine, but lets not forget what actually happened and what needs to be addressed now. Dont chase the red herring.

    • You missed his point. If the Obama Administration investigating Trump and his campaign was fine because of accusations, then Trump investigating Biden would be fine because of this video:

      www.realclearpolitics.com/.../...f_prosecutor.html

    • If, if, if. When all your argument can be is hypothetical, you have no argument.

    • Show All
Loading...
Loading...