BREAKING: House impeachment investigators release transcripts of first two deposition testimonies

He's not in a court of law... That doesn't remotely apply to impeachment and I've seen, read, and heard more than enough...

They tell me public polling somehow impacts official impeachment votes?? In that case, no point in holding back my opinion, is there??

 

Oh, okay, you like the word 'proof' as opposed to the word 'evidence.' Fair enough.

If there is proof that Trump said he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens to lift the suspension of that aid, do you agree he should be impeached?

 

I ask what your opinion is based upon.

Do you support the ideals upon which our nation was founded, or do you support any craven excuse to get your way?

 

Is one of those ideals that a POTUS may extort a Sovereign Nation to provide him with dirt on a domestic political election opponent using the US taxpayers money?

 

Not for that assumed fact alone. No.

I would require proof that it was unjustified.

 

What I've seen, read, and heard thus far... I'm not going to recap each item for you. Although I will say Contempt of Congress should be the first article, with Abuse of Power and Obstruction to follow... those would have worked for Nixon and they should work here, even though Nixon was operating at a beginner level compared to this guy.

Unlike most regular courts, I can also include prior bad acts, so I also believe the Obstruction from Volume 2 was impeachable as well as him being named as Individual 1 in the Cohen case last December... I doubt these articles will include any of that, but America should keep them in mind...

Don't question my patriotism again!

 

And if there is proof it was unjustified?

 

That's a manufactured narrative.

 

Nope. It is a question, posed to you.

Is one of those ideals that a POTUS may extort a Sovereign Nation to provide him with dirt on a domestic political election opponent using the US taxpayers money?

The answer is 'no' but you just can't bring yourself to post even those two letters lest it means there is a crack in your defensive armour of Trump.

 

Blah de blah.

Congress have proven themselves to be contemptible with their continued abuses of power against the citizens. They are not any ultimate authority. We, the people, are.

I didn't even vote for Trump. I left that slot on my ballot blank.

It's you unpatriotic people who have driven me to support him and I will vote for him in the next election because of your unpatriotic support for these unconstitutional hoaxes, that you support, as a pretext to subvert our electoral process.

 

My answer is: 'no'.

Will you now retort with the fake narrative?

 

No. Why could you not post "No" a few posts ago? Is it an ego thing with you? I do not toss hand grenades. My questions are simple, uncomplicated and easily responded to responsively.

 

The mere fact that you call impeachment unconstitutional just flushes any other possible point you were making in that post...

 

Geez, I forgot why I asked that 37 posts ago.. oh yeah, it was to debunk @squidward, which I did later on..

Y/N or T/F answers just seem like too much to ask, huh...

 

Then, we would be right to be where we are.

Those prerequisites have not been met; have they?

 

Not yet. (See how easy it is to answer straight up?)

 

Let's see how the discussion pans out.

I'm guessing where you're going.

 

Show the quote.

You're piling crap on crap.

You fooled me. I didn't expect that you would be so openly dishonest.

 

Yes, you are, and that is a mistake many make, trying to double guess the questioner who more often than not, simply seeks a plain answer to an uncomplicated question.

 

I don't get the point.

Why discuss hypotheticals?

 

Because I am trying to set some boundaries if foreshadowed events pan out as indicated. I'd like to think that when Trumpeteers are confronted with proof of unjustifiable misconduct by Trump emerges, there will be no more excuses made on his behalf.

 

There won't be any.

It's a hoax.

We already have reason enough to examine Biden.

The best that you can hope for is stalemate.

 

Are you referring to this?

If so, do you mean that there will never be proof of unjustifiable misconduct by Trump?

 

Would you care to focus you question on the subject of our discussion?

You're not going to bring up the possibility of cheating on 8th form exams, are you?

 

No I am not going to '8th form' anything. You are obfuscating. So defensive.

You:

Me:

Why do run away from such obvious questions?