Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[JimL]

No, we're talking about two different subjects.

I know, but your claims of criminal wrong doing applied to both. What makes you think your alleged claims of criminality against Obama are any more real than your claims against Clinton turned out to be?

[DivineOb]

The first set of Lev Parnas documents have been released by House Judiciary. Here is a note from Lev confirming that the goal was to get Zelensky to announce investigations into the Bidens.

Bad news for the bad guys :).

ETA: Here's some WhatsApp messages about tracking Marie Yavonovitch's movement's and hinting at planning her murder(!).

Beyond sickening.

Assuming these are legit anyone ready to get off the Trump Train yet?

[seanD]

You mean like the investigation that the President and his DOJ just had done with respect to Hillary Clintons alleged crimes that you all screamed about during the election in which no crimes were found. Talk about being taken in by fake news.

No, we're talking about two different subjects.

[JimL]

It's the gift that keeps on giving, especially when it can now be used to cover up crimes of the previous administration and shut anyone down inquiring about those crimes.

You mean like the investigation that the President and his DOJ just had done with respect to Hillary Clintons alleged crimes that you all screamed about during the election in which no crimes were found. Talk about being taken in by fake news.

[seanD]

The collusion delusion just never let's go does it?

It's the gift that keeps on giving, especially when it can now be used to cover up crimes of the previous administration and shut anyone down inquiring about those crimes.

[DivineOb]

I think if Bolton testifies, it will be much like what we've already heard, that the President made a policy decision, and some people in his administration disagreed with it. I would be shocked if he presented evidence that Trump actually broke the law.

So let me repeat my question. What evidence, short of an explicit confession by Trump, would you accept as proof he broke the law?

[lilpixieofterror]

I think if Bolton testifies, it will be much like what we've already heard, that the President made a policy decision, and some people in his administration disagreed with it. I would be shocked if he presented evidence that Trump actually broke the law.

I predict the following will happen:

1. The hype. Democrats will be very excited in declaring that trump is finished.
2. The questioning. The questioning will likely tell us much of what we already know, but likely won’t produce a bombshell.
3. The disappointment. We’ll see a million excuses for why the democrats were wrong again.
4. The repeat. We’ll go to step one on the next ‘crisis’ because democrats have yet to learn from the past dozen times where their bombshell acts like a bomb built by Acme.

[Mountain Man]

So are you looking for Bolton to confim 1) relevant details 2) state in his opinion that the president broke the law 3) both 4) something else?

I think if Bolton testifies, it will be much like what we've already heard, that the President made a policy decision, and some people in his administration disagreed with it. I would be shocked if he presented evidence that Trump actually broke the law.

[DivineOb]

That's not what I said.

So are you looking for Bolton to confim 1) relevant details 2) state in his opinion that the president broke the law 3) both 4) something else?

[Mountain Man]

A few posts back you said that Bolton confirming the entire Democratic case would be insufficient.

That's not what I said.

[DivineOb]

If the evidence exists then a confession from Trump isn't needed to convict. And frankly, I'm not impressed with the liberal narrative that Trump has somehow managed to suppress all the evidence that could be used to conclusively prove his guilt.

A few posts back you said that Bolton confirming the entire Democratic case would be insufficient. Here you say that a confession from Trump is not necessary. So, if you can, please help me understand what evidence you're looking for.

[Mountain Man]

Assume for the moment that that evidence exists. Is there anyone other than Trump, by directly confessing to the crime and calling it a crime, who could present it to you so that you would accept it?

If the evidence exists then a confession from Trump isn't needed to convict. And frankly, I'm not impressed with the liberal narrative that Trump has somehow managed to suppress all the evidence that could be used to conclusively prove his guilt.

[DivineOb]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact is there is zero evidence that the President broke the law.

Assume for the moment that that evidence exists. Is there anyone other than Trump, by directly confessing to the crime and calling it a crime, who could present it to you so that you would accept it?

[DivineOb]

Ah so I did read your post correctly the first time. You were trying to disqualify evidence you didn't like.

Convince me that HB is relevant then.

As far as the WB goes, any accused has the right to face his accuser.

:cantfindthezombiesmily:

And the credibility of the WB is central to the case. Not being able to question him even in secret is unacceptable.

That's your claim. Help me understand why that's necessary when his claims have already been confirmed by others who are beyond credible.

As far as Hunter goes, what he did or didn't do along with his dad goes directly to the case also. If Biden was using Nepotism to get Hunter the job and then using the money to extort Ukraine into firing the prosecutor then we indeed do have a national security issue going on.

Yikes! Sounds serious! Surely you have evidence other than a HB fishing trip to back this up.

We have a crook who is trying to become President. If the democrats cared so much about whether Trump is a crook that they are willing to impeach him, then they should also care if Biden is one. It means that Trump was trying to out a criminal in the national interest as he was claiming.

Show me the money!

OK I was right about you in the first place, you just want to disqualify and ignore anything that you don't like. I am, again, done with you on this topic.

They all eventually come back :). Bring evidence and not just stories you heard on Fox next time.

[firstfloor]

He still hasn't accepted the fact that Rachael lied to him.

Rachel is touched by God and so cannot lie.