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.

"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."

Do you think her not listening to them aggravated those anxieties, or made you better able to handle them?

I believe in yin and yang...tough love makes you tuff but it can also make you less sensitive which in certain situations provides insight that is just as valuable as having thick skin.

That being said, why not both? The question as posed is very general so im not sure if i am answering it in a way that makes sense to you.

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.

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.

I am very sorry for your loss and I will say a sincere prayer, for what that is worth as an agnostic. Please be well and stay positive.

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.

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.

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...