It's simple. Donald Trump became President. When that happened, the extreme left liberal democrats threw a hissy fit with the maturity of a 5-year-old having a tantrum.
Time didn't mature these people and they still could not accept that Trump was here to stay.
The mentality of the liberal left works like this; we don't like him, so let's impeach him.
With the proof there was never any "Russian collusion" to begin with, the liberal left kept whining, just like the stunted children they are.
Let's get this straight, there is no amount of American goodness that can make a liberal happy because they are all about government hand-outs.
Republicans, on the other hand, are tired of paying for the lazy, video gamming libs who don't work. America was founded as a Constitutional Republic and the Democracy which was supposed to keep certain checks and balances, morphidited into a "thing," that is unrecognizable when it come to the human mentality.
With that said, the Democratic party sheepishly went forward with unfounded non claims of the impeachment process. And like everything they touch, they managed to smudge a vital part of the American system, leaving a $#!t stain with it.
Got news. In 2016, the responsible people of America voted for Donald Trump and he isn't going anywhere. Further, in 2020, Donald IS going to get re-elected for another term. No amount of winning or crying is going to change that and until people (who are physically mature) actually grow up, I forsee Republican control for a very long time.
The cival wars are just about to begin.

I love your explanation, Al.
That's pretty much exactly how it sounds to an outsider.

Thank you, J.N. A few short years ago I just chalked it up to media hype (and there is a lot of that). But, as time has moved on, I'm personally beginning to experience what I've seen on T.V. and I'm blown away.

how the hell did the people vote in a full house of representatives with democrats - which pushed the vote for impeachment?

i wonder how the senate is gonna deal with this.. i read that they're going to have a congressional trial.. on the president and then the senate will vote to impeach or not.

I can't believe how many Americans seem to hate trump, and every day Facebook is full of people criticizing him.
A fair few British people seem to hate him too, but I don't know where they're coming from as pretty much all the English people I've spoke to love him and along with myself were hoping he would get in, as our government tends to copy yours, and ours needed a shake up.

I watched part of this being broadcast yesterday, only for about 10 mins as that's all I could take.
In that 10 mins, nothing was said, it was all just words thrown around without any point or meaning, it came across like nobody knew what they were doing or saying.
It all seemed like a total farce.

its called media spin. pfff but yes farce is the better word to describe all that.

Trump isnt owned by anyone
He has liberal and conserative in him.
We all loved john wayne.
Men have become p.u.s.s.i.e.s and want safe spaces .
Trump is the real john wayne.
Dont mess with him. Dont try to smear him. He will use it to expose more lies from the left.
He will win a landslide in 2020.
Partly because of impeachment.
The left is so stupid their fueling his landslide victory.

the whole world has eyes on this gig.. its like the superbowl

Summary

Since President Donald Trump took office:

The jobless rate fell further, to the lowest in nearly 50 years. The number of job openings grew to the highest in at least 18 years.
Economic growth picked up, but remained far short of what Trump promised.
The growth of federal regulatory restrictions stopped.
Handgun production fell 21 percent, and sales of all guns also dropped.
Carbon dioxide emissions stopped falling, and rose 1.8 percent.
Illegal Mexico-U.S. border crossings surged to the highest number in over a decade.
Stock prices and after-tax corporate profits set records. So did single-family home prices.
The U.S. trade deficit, which Trump promised to reduce, grew by nearly 28%.
The number of people without health insurance rose by 2 million to 7 million, depending on the survey.
Weekly wages grew faster than inflation, and the number of people getting food stamps fell to the lowest in nearly 10 years.
The federal debt rose by $1.8 trillion.
Annual deficits accelerated.

Your question is very simple, and very general, and can be answered in a number of different ways...I'm going to assume you know what impeachment is and your question is simply about what Trump is being impeached FOR....and the answer to that is very simple and very brief:

There are two charges, or, in legalese, two "articles of impeachment."

The first is "abuse of power." This charge asserts that Trump attempted to withhold Congress-approved aid from the country of Ukraine in exchange for a personal benefit, namely smearing his most-likely Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. And, that in so doing, he abused the power of his office.

The second charge is "obstruction of Congress." This one is similar to the actual crime of "obstruction of justice." Basically Trump is being accused here of deliberately trying to sabotage the impeachment inquiry into the aforementioned abuse of power. Specifically, by "stonewalling" the investigation. So that when Congress issued lawful subpoenas for documents and witnesses, the President issued a general gag order.

That is what he is offically being charged for. Here is a pdf of the articles, it's only nine pages long if you want to read it: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.jud...

This comment is my brief take on the issue...I have a lot more thoughts and complex feelings about the impeachment. I've followed the impeachment more closely than most people (which isn't saying much since most people don't pay attention to these things at all...but still!). I'm not an expert on these matters and I don't know everything by a long shot, but these are the facts as I see them:

As to the question, did Trump do it? The answer to that question, in my opinion is...absolutely. We have a transcript where he asks for a personal favor in exchange for aid. That said...as someone who has thought a lot about the meaning of words I have to admit there are some ambiguities, but if you take the conversation at face value, Trump is absolutely guilty. (here is a link to the call transcript: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-... )

More than that...all the witnesses who testified that I heard, all seemed to be utterly confused by Trump's withholding of the aid, and at the time it was happening, the only reasons they could think of of why he would be withholding is that either he was conditioning the aid on the aforementioned smear (specifically he wanted the Ukrainian President to announce he was investigating Joe and his son Hunter Biden) OR he just had a grudge against Ukraine because some of their people badmouthed them during his campaign. So, either Trump's handling of the Ukraine situation was so bizarre or inept that even the people working on it had no idea what the heck he was thinking, or he was doing something that was bad...given the call and his refusal to cooperate with the investigation...yes, think Trump did it.

In other words, the only way you could say that Trump wasn't being corrupt, is that he was being extraordinarily incompetent.....being stupid isn't an impeachable offense but it certainly doesn't look good.

Now, it could very well be that there is a document or witness out there that basically proves my interpretation of the evidence wrong....if there is, Trump has it, and he's refusing to release it. Which makes no sense to me, given all the controversy that has been stirred up...therefore, I really feel like Trump is guilty. But more than that, he's spitting on the inquiry and not taking it seriously even though at least half the country thinks he did it (according to polls).

Now, the second charge, obstruction of Congress, is a little muddier. The crux of that argument is this: Trump isn't refusing to release certain documents, or refusing to allow certain witnesses to testify...he flatly refused to release ANYTHING or allow ANYONE to testify. Their argument is that it makes no sense to claim that EVERYTHING the President's administration does is subject to "executive privilege" (meaning that he's withholding it "in the public interest"). Rather, he was trying to cripple the investigation into his wrong doing.

This second article is weaker than the first, in my opinion....but being that I believe that Trump DID it, and also being that an Impeachment is a political process that does not require the same standards of proof as a real life criminal trial...I'm for both articles. Trump did the thing, and he tried to cover it up.

I voted against Trump in 2016, because, hey, I'm a liberal leaning independent and I don't like his take on certain issues. Also, he has never come off as particularly intelligent or thoughtful to me. The first thing is fine to disagree about, we have liberal people in this country, and we have conservative people, it goes more one way or the other depending on the season. The second thing is just my gut feeling, so it's not really generally valid, fine.

There was this one interview he gave years ago, before he was even running for President. It was right after the first season of the Apprentice and he had just "written" (i.e., ghostwritten) a book. In the interview he was talking about the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that goes "all men are created equal." and he said that he thought it was a very beautiful saying, but not very true...which, I understand that he was saying that, some people are born stronger, some smarter, whatever...but just the WAY he said it really rubbed me the wrong way at the time.

And that, too, is just something that rubbed me the wrong way. It's not really generally valid.

And, after he was elected...I'll be honest. I don't hate everything he's done. He HAS done some good for the country. He isn't the devil.

All that is to say...I don't hate trump. I really don't....I'm as biased as anyone else...but I did not go into this assuming he was wrong...

I will even go so far as to say that I don't agree on everything in how the Democrats carried out the investigation...they could have done it A LOT better, and I definitely wonder if they could have done more to make their case. I don't discount ALL the Republican complaints about the fairness of the proceedings, though most of the complaints I've heard on that front don't make much sense.

What has REALLY disgusted me in all this...is that the Republican caucus has acted as if they were all Trump's personal lawyers in this and have done literally nothing to investigate the matter. The only person in their caucus to even SLIGHTLY criticize Trump was Will Hurd, a moderate Republican who said that the call was inappropriate, but not impeachable (I'm paraphrasing). Everyone else in the caucus has just blindly supported him and some have even lied about the evidence and I heard one misquote their own witness, John Turley yesterday during the impeachment debate.

I can understand defending the President...but the Republicans have turned the hearing into a sideshow. You cannot call the impeachment "a hoax" when you have the President incriminating himself on the call transcript. If you do that you're insulting the American public's intelligence and you're not taking your oath of office seriously. They simply aren't engaging with the facts.

And I say that with a very heavy heart...I'm not disappointed that Republicans are defending Trump...I'm disappointed because of HOW they're defending him...and that they haven't called on Trump to release more documents or allow more witnesses to testify...that's just burying your head in the sand and farting in all of our general direction.

They didn't. It's simply an act put on by the Democratic Party. They think by what they alone do (along with media hype) then "suddenly" they will get their way. It's also designed to stir a $#!t pot among the civil populous.

Yes, but chances are, you're not going to see one Republican joining them to play their game of pretend. In the end though, the Republicans will officially have to vote once it goes to senate and that is where the hopes, dreams and wishes of the Democratic Party will hopefully die.
The Republicans haven't changed their mind and if the Democrats don't get what they want they will be forced to straighten up and fly right.
Further "whining" and repeated action by the democratic party will be looked at as insurrection, and you can be sure that after four years of proof, there will be no place a Democratic representative can run when it comes to judicial matters then.
And the first persons head on the block will be that b!tc# Nancy Pelosi.....

Thats why I keep saying the left is their worst enemy.
They are giving trump not only 4 more years but a landslide victory to boot.

There was this great snl skit about the OJ trial and i wish i could find it.

Basically the skit was a guy pretending to be Johnnie Cochran saying something to the effect of:

"The press accuses us of using the race-card, but no one points out that the prosecution constantly and shamelessly uses the evidence-card! 'The evidence THIS, the evidence THAT. We have evidence that shows...' It's hypocrisy!"

Sub out race card with partisan card and it's what the republican's argument comes down too.

The trouble with this, Lano, is there is no "evidence" much less "proof" of anything when it comes to the accusations of the Democratic party. Here's an example of the tripe that has been generated -

- "Lano....we are charging you of the crimes of which you know you're guilty of. These crimes are quasi and nebulous but very clear. Yes, we're gonna talk, sing and dance over the foggy bank and it's gonna get straight to the point....."

And that's the way it has been. These people are operating from the fantasy side of imagination. There's nothing solid, nothing specific.

At least an "argument" presented by the Republican Party has some substance to it.

This just isn't true. I know it's not true because i have seen and stated some of the evidence here. This is the frustrating thing for me...the biggest piece of evidence isn't circumstantial...it is Trump solicting a bribe (or quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it) on a call transcript. And people say there is no evidence, even though there is, so there's not much to even discuss or dispute if we're just going to decide facts aren't facts unless they don't incriminate the president.

What exactly is nebulous or quasi about saying "Do us a favor though"? What exactly is unclear? There is a specific, concrete, corrupt act that the president is being accused of, supported by concrete evidence and witness testimony.

I'm sorry Lano, but you've proven my point. The best you have to offer is "soliciting a bribe," and there's nothing 'solid' about that. It's all liquifaction and nebulous - the safety and security of America is not at risk over a hazy issue.
There was stronger evidence against Bill Clinton back in the 90's and it did nothing to remove him from office. Furthermore, Whitewater and the long trail of scandles and death that have followed Hilary hasn't seemed to slow the population of airheads from supporting that murderess.... That is specific as Enron....

Don't you get it? There is a population of people who have no business entering into the arena of politics - but they have. And though they may be high functioning (ie have a job, pay some taxes and rent) they have all the maturity of spoiled children.
It takes bipartisan unity to commission an accusation. Have you never stopped to ask yourself, who has defined the Presidents actions as criminal??
The Dems.

https://youtu.be/pRx8A4Ne17w

https://youtu.be/ALr2jS6cg2E

"solicting a bribe" means to ask for a bribe. It's not nebulous or hazy.

"President of Ukraine: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though..."

That's copy and pasted from the call transcript word for word. The hard, terrible, JOYLESS truth is right there.

If the President is conditioning official acts on personal favors our safety and security are ABSOLUTELY at risk.

Them being guilty of something doesn't make Trump innocent of anything, it's irrelevant for anything but historical comparison. Neither Clinton is President right now.

This is not true. Democrats aren't the only ones....there's Justin Amash, Christianity Today, and other conservatives who refuse to keep their heads buried in the sand.

But even if there weren't....why does it matter who's accusing him? Ad hominen arguments against his accusers do nothing to contradict the evidence. That's not a defense. That's saying "I'm not going to listen to the facts because I don't like the political party membership of the person presenting them."

All that said, the worst thing about the impeachment isn't that Republicans defend trump, or that they claim not to be convinced by the evidence, it's that they lie about the facts to people like you and me so that you go around saying there's no evidence and things are confusing and made up when the truth is otherwise.

The fact that the Republican caucus is spreading disinformation about the impeachment is not a fact I revel in. I'm disgusted and disappointed. I expected better. But facts are facts.

I think some of them just don't give a crap about Ukraine or think it effects much. Still others, like Jim Hurd, think it's bad but not enough to impeach and aren't really taking the possible consequences of having a corrupt President seriously because they're eager to have 4 more years of a conservative President.

But I think others are just straight up corrupt, and expect to get jobs from Trump or for family members to get jobs. A few of them are retiring after this term, I bet one or two will end up in Trump's administration when he's elected next term.

People say Trump isn't owned by anyone...it's true he's not...you got someone who isn't beholden to any special interest. But you did it by cutting out the middle man and just electing someone who IS a special interest.

Briefly (and again) 👉bipartisan👈 confirmation of corruption/collusion.

You ever hear of something called a figure of speech? Do me a favor and look into it - lol. Ever hear of something called allied forces? There is just more than one narrative the President has to operate in.
The perspective of the People is just one. Trump is Chief and Commander of the U.S. armed forces - he might need a translator every now and then but he doesn't need someone to define expression or meaning when it comes to that translation....

Well....yeah....that's right.
And this is a case where said special interest has more cause, care and concern for the people than these carreer politicians who have criminal activity among themselves (drain that swamp Trump) who have been living heaven high on the real lies and stabbings they give the common people.
All those politicians in seats - they have their corporations, too..... And it seems they operate influence from two chairs.
That's what's criminal in the real sense.

Thank you....you're now engaging the EVIDENCE that exists instead of claiming that there is none. You're defending against the legitimate accusation that the Democrats have against the President on the ground of reason and logic and not just pretending the evidence doesn't exist, like so many Republicans. If you disagree that they are pretending the evidence doesn't exists, try listening to the impeachment debate if there is a recording out there yet.

Like I said...I don't blame people for defending the President...it's that they're saying things like "hoax" when this is NOT a hoax, it's not a joke. SO many americans have seen the evidence and come to the same conclusion I have, of all political and ideological stripes. We're not all just blindly listening to what people of telling us. Some ARE, to be sure, but that's happening on both sides. Many people are convinced by the evidence they have seen, and they aren't stupid for thinking that there is something fishy going on here.

To address your argument directly...I don't think it's a strong defense. It sounds to me, if I am understanding, that you're saying that the word "favor" is a figure of speech here. There's no partucular reason to believe it is, but fine. Take out the word.

"I want you to do something, THOUGH." Right after Zelenksy asked for aid. So, unless the President just responded with a complete non-sequitur when zelensky says this...it looks bad. Not only does he follow with an immediate request...he uses the word THOUGH. This means conditionality.

That being said....you're right...it's possible that the President didn't mean it quite like that. Maybe he mispoke. Even though what's said on these calls is planned out beforehand, and he deliberately avoided the talking points that his staff gave him for the call. Maybe he just worded, whatever he really meant, really terrible, which still means he really botched the call by not being clear to Zelensky what he meant.

The call clearly isn't perfect, despite what the President says. It's horrible and inappropriate, even in the most lenient of interpretations. That isn't even the only thing about the call that looks horrible for Trump. There are other parts where he refers to a former Ukranian prosecutor who was FIRED FOR CORRUPTION as "really good" and laments that he was fired (look up Viktor Shokin). He also obliquely THREATENS his former ambassador that he fired after she was wrongfully smeared by Rudy Giuliani FOR DOING HER JOB WELL.

If the President at least admitted that the call could have gone alot better, I'd give him a lot more credit. If he at least said, "Sorry, I wasn't doing anything corrupt, I can see how you would say that though, I just REALLY botched this call." It's still a weak defense. He's still probably guilty, but at least he would be defending himself on the grounds of logic and not on magic fairy clouds. To act as irrationally as he's reacted in the face of the legitimate accusation shows poor leadership and it reeks of cover-up.

The "do us a favor though" was highly edited. The entire recorded phone call still exists on the highly classified server. I would like to see a word for word transcript of the entire phone call. I bet Biden was mentioned more than just 3 times.

Ooo the sjw are white privledged uni kids who live in their parents basement.
Idiots. Get a job and pay your own way.
You know what. I hope you get ypur way and have socialism communism. Ive lived most of my life. I hope you uni brats gets your wish. Idiots Idiots. Idiots

That has nothing to do with why Trump is being impeached.

That's the question...why release the transcript, and not the recording?

If the transcript was edited though, it's probably only minor differences, such that people who were on the call, like Vindman, couldn't tell from memory and their notes...though the fact that their notes differs slightly from the call transcript might be evidence that there was such an edit...we won't know unless the White House releases it though.

Though....when the transcript is so incriminating even edited, why would they bother?

Lano. I just watched slashes sjw videos.

Ooops, sorry.

....Don't thank me quite yet. You do understand that the representing icon of the Democratic party is a braying, buck-toothed jackass.... Donkeys aren't known for their "reason" or "logic." No one in their right mind strives for the attributes.....of a donkey.
But there are those who assess themselves as special. Who assume they are flying higher in altitude than they really are and can't quite read into the meaning as it was originally intended.
Evidence of what? A phone call? Spoken words whether good or poorly put? Where is the crime so heinous that it calls for impeachment?
(Again) There is none.
The Democrats have had a nice long run - nearly 16 years worth for the spoiling of a complete generation.
But in 2016, they lost. The real adults are back in control, making America great again after countless nights spent in tears wondering where the goodness of America went.
The Dems couldn't even lose with dignity - they sit at home, on campus, in the workplace braying. Unless it's in the form of some sort of activism, dems and liberals are some of the lowest producing, highest liability people that demand the most accommodations.

We all should get along with our fellow citizen. Calling this a hoax, at very least, gives our fellow dems and libs a doorway out of the collective insanity their groups have occulted.

-We're not all just blindly listening to what people are telling us.-

- No, you're listening only to yourselves, that or the liberal media news agencies that pulp out such rhetoric.
It's like - hmm, Trump bashing, I believe it, don't turn that dial.

Who are these "many" who have "seen" and when? What liberal media news network did they get their Intel from AND just how unimportant is the office of attorney general anyway?
Remember kids, never get your information straight from the horses mouth. You can't trust the one that directly experienced the event....

All truth is strong, Lano. But assuming truth varies in strength, this is a case where only enough strength is needed to swat buzzing mosquitos.
Donald isn't going anywhere and he's going to be around for sometime yet to come.
And this game over the word "THOUGH." Lol! This really takes me back to the good 'ol Clinton days when Bill was on trial - damn well knowing his guilt, his entire defense hung on the word "IS."
You, or anybody else is welcome to believe what they want - no matter how tightly you squeeze your eyes and wish, it doesn't make it true and it isn't going to get rid of Trump. Period.
When it comes to foreign affairs regarding aid, the President can make as many conditions as he wants as long it's in the best interest of the U.S. If that's a crime then all Presidents are guilty - time to get the indictments rolling and make the children pay for the sins of the fathers....
And would Donald finally free of "charges" if he spoke over the phone using sign-language?

So much eye strain over a gnat phone call. Meanwhile, none of the Hilary supporters are grateful that thousands of E-Mail transcriptions that directly led to her guilt, went missing.....

I say this because the life of reality is not looked at in the same way from those who live in fantasy.

Let's get some perspective; if that call had ****tits they would have already been milked to death.

For better or worse, it was a phone call at most (if that.)

It's the part where he refused to give bi-partisan congress-approved aid unless President Zelensky helped him smear his most likely Democratic opponent next year.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not President Trump is guilty.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...are you agreeing it's not a hoax?

On the impeachment issue I have not been taking my cues from the liberal (or conservative) media. I listened to the hearings...the witnesses...read testimony...I read the transcript which is a direct recording of Trump's wrongdoing.

I'm referring to polling that shows that about half of americans are in support of impeachment...and I am presuming that at least some of the people polled have done due diligence to the issue. Granted, of course, polls can be deceiving.

I don't really understand the metaphor here...and the stuff about Clinton is irrelevant because he's not the one being impeached right now.

But he didn't do it for us, he did it for himself. Specifically, he wanted Zelensky to provide dirt on his most likely democratic opponent, i.e., Biden.

No, it wouldn't matter if he asked for a bribe in English, sign-language, Japanese, or Swahili...asking for a bribe is wrong for the President to do, regardless of which language he decided to speak in.

The transcript wasn't invented by the liberal media.

That's the thing....people get distracted with what they hate about the people on the other side of the aisle and aren't focusing on the facts.

The Clintons did this or that...okay, then investigate the Clintons...it doesn't make Trump innocent.

Democrats are corrupt and stupid......their policies aren't right for the country, etc, etc.ok, then...investigate them. Or vote them out of office. But it still doesn't make Trump innocent.

Let the Republican party take over for the next ten thousand years and only Republican Presidents are elected and only Republican Congressman...everyone in the US just republican. It won't change the facts.

Truth is not a democracy...something either is or is not the case. Doesn't matter if Trump says it, or if I say it, or anyone else who has lived or will ever live. The truth isn't Republican or Democrat...it's not even bi-partisan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be as objective as you can. Try to bracket everything you feel about Democrats. Bracket, as well, everything you feel about Trump. Let it go. Put it aside for a few minutes. You don't have to bring it up to me, I'm not a Democrat.

Now look at the evidence...think about the evidence. Play the devil's advocate for both sides. Assume the facts are true and that you have no stake in it. Then decide what you want to believe.

* "It's the part where he refused to give bi-partisan congress-approved aid unless President Zelensky helped him smear his most likely Democratic opponent next year." *

When it comes to many things, the President doesn't need bipartisan approval to act within parameter of his job.

"None of this has anything to do with whether or not President Trump is guilty."

No, but it does describe a mob of pouty, childish imbicels who STILL refuse to accept Trump as President and the lengths they are willing to go to search and jump on any tiny speck they think will get him outed - that's the real crime. That mentality was old and worn out a long time ago. And now, it's like dealing with high maintenance children - it's tiresome and exhausting.
Further, the good nature of those that voted him in are done playing babysitter to those who are supposed to be adults.

" I'm not sure what you mean by this...are you agreeing it's not a hoax?"

I'm saying the number one ingredient to a box of Rice Crispies isn't listed on the box.... There is a biast quality when it comes liberal journalism and this is why I would sooner say the call is a hoax and a fantasy. Much like Rice Crispies, it's chalked full of Democratic air. And that is the problem. You assume if I admit to a call that I acknowledge a criminal act. And this is why the power of the pen should not be allowed in the hands of many.

"On the impeachment issue I have not been taking my cues from the liberal (or conservative) media. I listened to the hearings...the witnesses...read testimony...I read the transcript which is a direct recording of Trump's wrongdoing."

No you haven't. Considering that President Nixon was caught in a criminal situation that was called Watergate, the transcription of those recordings have never been released to the public and likely never will.
If there was any real criminality of his phone call, Donald would be offered the chance to resign.
You're watching liberal journalism and you know it.

"I'm referring to polling that shows that about half of americans are in support of impeachment...and I am presuming that at least some of the people polled have done due diligence to the issue. Granted, of course, polls can be deceiving."

Lano....(yet again) the polling results you see is liberal media generated and flavored. Keep squeezing your eyes tighter and tighter, hopes and wishes, hopes and wishes. I will digress only so much based on the fact that you at least admitted that polls can be deceiving.

"I don't really understand the metaphor here...and the stuff about Clinton is irrelevant because he's not the one being impeached right now."

Sorry Lano, just because you don't understand the Clinton comparison (not metaphor), does not make my point irrelevant. It's going to take you time to catch up to that one - my freebies are about gone, You'll have to figure it out on your own.

"The transcript wasn't invented by the liberal media."

.....Provided there was a transcript....No. It wasn't invented by the liberal media.....but try NOT to find it strange how it got into their hands.....?

I didn't assume at all. I said I didn't understand and asked if what I said is what you meant, which is the opposite of assuming. You responded by clarifying that what I said is not, in fact, what you meant.

Ok...so you're saying I'm lying...there's nothing really more to talk about then. If you think I'm a liar then nothing I say can convince you.

I like talking about the impeachment because it's something I've studied a little and it's something I care about, even when I disagree with whoever I'm talking about it with.

I don't like being called a liar....

I know I'm just an internet person, but you did not even ask me where I get my information from, when I say that I'm not just listening to liberal news sources, which I KNOW are biased (not that that makes everything they say is false, especially when what they say is corroborated by freely accessible public information). For the record, I'll say what I meant. I'm talking about witness testimony from people who are and were in the State Department, at least one of whom I know is a Trump appointee. And I'm not talking about sound bites. I listened to the hearings as they happened, and to both Democrat and Republican questions. And there is also the transcript, which you asked if I asked myself if I know how the liberal media got the transcript...I actually know exactly how they got it...and I DID find it strange at first, but after thinking about it, I came up with a good theory on that...but I wonder if you know where they got it?

I've challenged things you've said and when I've doubted the veracity of something, I didn't just say you weren't being honest. In order for a civil debate about something to work, you have to assume a certain amount of good faith in your interlocutor or it's no longer a meaningful debate.

For the record. The poll I mentioned DID come from a liberal media outlet (CNN), so if you want to say that the number is just made up by them, fine. I disagree because I haven't heard any evidence that the poll is made up and I haven't seen any counter polls, but who cares, it's just a poll and they're not the most reliable source of information for lots of reasons. I have a lot of feelings about polls and how people use them. In any case i'd be interested if you've seen another poll that contradicts it.

Slow down. I neither am saying or think you are a liar. What I am saying is, there are very few (if any) of unbiased sources that one can safely rely on when it comes to these accusations.
You know only what they want you to know or any quasi supposition that any individual is willing to conclude.... That's something that makes us victims, not liars.

I should not have to. In the discourse of our correspondence you should have included those sources of which you find rock solid and completely reliable.
Although my nature is a bit of a Juggernaut, I may not have replied any differently. Being said, I apologize for any infraction I may have caused you.

Leak from the source, altered to cause incitement. Had there been anything truly substancial, the issue would have been left in the box for later use in an authentic trial (hence my comparisons to historical events of other Presidents; those which have worked, and those that have not).
For the sake of simplicity I will leave it at this.

I don't see a source being cited here...it also happens to not be true. Maybe where-ever you're getting your info from is a little bit biased?

The fact is that the White House released the transcript. Not a leak, Trump approved the release. I know that because I listened to/watched the hearings, mostly live as they were happening. Audio, written, and video recordings of the hearing are available for free on the internet, as well as written versions of at least some of the original closed-door depositions. It was declassified the same day the Impeachment inquiry officially started.

This DOES seems strange at first...it's so incriminating, so why would he publish it? But it actually makes sense if he suspected that someone who was on the call would end up testifying...if the info is going to get out anyway, he might as well release it himself to make it seem like he has nothing to hide.

You keep saying IF the call was so incriminating x, y, or z thing....have you read the transcript? You can read it for free on the internet. I think it's like three pages long. If you haven't already, you should really read it and decide for yourself.

I was probably a bit hasty and shouldn't have taken it personally.

Please remember my earlier reference(s). Again -

When working with hints and allegations, I usually find it necessary to consider similar, historical events and their outcome to determine validity of current events. Otherwise, snags, just as you have pointed out below👇👇👇 seem to rise up.

Lano, please forgive my humor, but I have learned through humor and have found it valuable for teaching or at very least for expression when it comes to the obvious.
The White House is a building and is incapable of leaking anything but water. It doess what a building does; it houses human bodies. Surely, someone was in charge for the securities of those transcripts. Considering there was no closed door pre-trial to commission an open impeachment hearing tells me everything I need to know.
With that said, let's add in your bit (which is rather resounding). In a court of law, there is nothing that forces someone to convict themselves. The only trouble I have with your statement, Lano, is that you seem to be saying that Donald is skirting himself under the color of law "to make it seem like he has nothing to hide."
Let's examine this for a second.... He's the President of the United States, for God's sake. Other than the clothes he wears, he the most naked man on earth - there's no such thing as a private moment considering the nature of the job. What is he going to hide? Absolutely nothing because that's what happened.

Maybe I'll look into it, maybe I won't - I don't know.

I say this because I've had many decades looking down the road of the White House and here is the base-line - it's an East Coast program of a West Coast production. All made in a You Can't Be Here studio....
You die, and the last words you have to say are completely predictable.
I saw it on T.V.
But, I may be wrong.....

Do either of you know if the Whistleblower's letter has been made public?

I havent heard anything.

I imagine they wouldn't release anything that could hint the identity of the whistle blower until trump is no longer president. By impeachment or other means.

Todays top impeachment story is the release of an email from a white house official to DOD requesting the hold be put on the aid two hours after the phone call.

☝☝☝☝☝This.

SMH....
This really make me wonder what Hilary did with all her E-Mails when she was facing indictment charges....oh yeah....she deleted them....

I don't know why (even though I do) people say, "what has that got to do with what's going on?"
Maybe it's because I have a problem with nearly 50% of voters who were supporting Hilary regardless of the broad spectrum of her crimes. Murder is no small matter. And, it's not hard to figure that her and Bill are very discreet ********swingers.
That kind of lifestyle doesn't go without its problems.
And yet, Hilary is hero to so many. What a role model.

The whistleblower's complaint is actually posted on the house of reps website.

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsin...

Ahh. Yes. Of course. There it is. Let's see what is said before we look at the document -

I feel today as though my cereal was packed with 8 essential minerals and vitamins - what a wholesome, resounding speech....
I wonder, who is the person that spoke those words and what party is he affiliated with.....?

- Chairman Adam Schiff.
Democratic Party of California....

And who is the Inspector General of Intelligence?
Michael Atkinson
Party Affiliation - Democratic Party

No.... There's no "collaboration or collusion" going on with the U.S. Democratic Party....at all.

You wanna know the funny thing is when it comes to reading the ingredients on a box of Rice Crispies? The main ingredient is never listed.

Hired by Trump though.

In any case I don't think it's suspicious that he was doing his job. It sounds like you're saying being a Democrat makes someone a criminal.

That the inspector general of the intelligence community notified congress of a whistleblower complaint, as is required of him by law. Makes sense but oh wait...he's a democrat, nevermind, he's on the wrong team, we can't trust him. So much for bipartisanship.

And what exactly are you suggesting? That he made up the whistleblower complaint? Maybe he's hired all the witnesses in the hearing and wrote the texts and emails that were presented as evidence too? He probably wrote the transcript that trump released as well. Damn those wily dems.

No President will have all red or blue cabinets. Hired by rules of the game.

No. I've been saying what is obvious all along - if you're a Republican named Donald Trump, you're a criminal by default because you're not squeaky virgin clean Hilary Clinton who really should have won the 2016 campaign all along.

Yes and no....Yes and no -
He damn sure well has been on a team that has been pre-determined to over-turn Trump's Presidency from the word go. Now combine that with left hand wailings that would give any child daycare a run for it's money and (that's right) good bye bipartisanship.

Not at all. It just as you've said - he was legally bound (skirt of law). Forwarded under the power of his determination.

So, when should the liberal left take respond ability for the previous actions which have carved their reputation.

In all actuality if the liberal left had lost with grace and was mature about Donald's win, maybe what's going on right now would be taken more seriously.
Yes. Those Wiley Dems because the nature of human and the lengths they're willing to go

Has it occured to you that Republicans are taking advantage of this very reputation you speak of, using it as cover for their own corruption? Calling it a hoax, saying there is no evidence when there is...counting on people to not examine the facts for themselves.

Before i knew more facts i was leaning against impeachment too.

I just remembered something.

Before the election was even over someone told me that no matter who won, someone was going to impeach someone else...meaning if hilary won, she would get impeached, and if trump won, he would be impeached.

I said no way. People should NOT be talking about impeachment this early.

Damn that person was right and damn was i wrong.

Which is to say, your point that some Democrats were set on impeachment from the outset is taken.

They cried wolf.

And now the red tie-wearing wolf's drool is dripping on our heads and many of us still don't take it seriously because the people saying it cried wolf too many times.

Thank you Lano.

The strong demand for dirt on the Biden's is made very convincingly in it. A lot more so than, "I need you to do us a favor though" in the transcript.
Another lie by Trump.
Why do you like this jerk Slash?

Merry Christmas to you, dear lady.