Re: Impeachment
 

I think we have to wait a few days to see which holes these pachinko balls fall into.
I think there are more than a few Republicans who will turn on him, if they see the wind blowing in the right direction.

Re: Impeachment
 

Trump's tactics in regards the Ukrainian president exactly match what Michael Cohen testified to in his congressional testimony earlier this year as regards Trump's modus operandi.

Re: Impeachment
 

Scaramucci seeing sense and at the same time calling himself a criminal? Ok.

Let's hope Stephen Miller was amongst those officials...

Re: Impeachment
 

Have you read the whistleblower's complaint?

If you don't at least open an impeachment investigation for this, I don't see the point of having an impeachment process.

Re: Impeachment
 

Seems to me that the big story is Warren's gains rather than Biden's losses, per se. And those gains started well before the Ukraine story broke. But I do agree that the impeachment inquiry is going to be a drag on Biden's support, despite the fact that there is nothing sinister about his Ukraine involvement. For some seeing "Biden" and "Ukraine" linked is going to be enough for them to look elsewhere.

Re: Impeachment
 

I won;t hide the fact that I believe Trump to be a disaster of a human being, but on the Republican vs. Democrat angle, I don;t have any skin in the game, so not fussed by either (especially as they seem to have flipped over during history).

What has been presented on the Ukraine call though does seem like the sort of thing that would require proper investigation, at the very least. The live questioning earlier was interesting - the general feeling I got from watching that was that Trump would not have been happy with the way some of the questions were answered. There were also a few Republicans being interviewed who seemed far less committal than they have been on other things. waiting to see how it plays out rather than going full Nunez(he's a proper oddity). The second Democrat who questioned was equally as odd a character, who seemed utterly unable to hide what seemed an internal delight to have his say on Trump.

Overall, this seems far more likely to cause problems than the Russia thing was ever going to do. Trump is not going to change the behaviour of a lifetime, which is essentially to look after number one and bully anyone he sees as not being equal to his standing. He essentially celebrated being told by someone on Fox he'd been cleared on the Russia probe by having this call and idea on funding with the Ukranian President.

Re: Impeachment
 

I have, the whistleblower has also stated they don't have first-hand evidence and it is essentially he said/she said, therefore you're essentially opening up an investigation without having any hard evidence, especially after the whole Mueller farce. If this doesn't come off, Democrats are going to look like an even bigger Circus than they already do.

Re: Impeachment
 

No, it isn't. The whistleblower is willing to name those who have firsthand knowledge. Presumably the Whitehouse will be happy for those individuals to testify, right?

"President Trump told a crowd of staff from the United States Mission to the United Nations on Thursday morning that he wants to know who provided information to a whistle-blower about his phone call with the president of Ukraine, saying that whoever did so was “close to a spy” and that “in the old days,” spies were dealt with differently.

The remark stunned people in the audience, according to a person briefed on what took place, who had notes of what the president said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-spy.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Home page

Add that to the hopper of what needs to be investigated.

This analysis notes that the whistleblower "nailed the July 25 call" with his secondhand information. Not proof, that everything reported is accurate, of course, but it certainly adds to the credibility of whoever it was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...wer-complaint/

Hopefully some Republicans will wake up even if folks like you won't.

Re: Impeachment
 

And they were, actually in many probably most places they still are.

I did read it and I can certainly see why the Dems do not like what he says or does and as I have mentioned this is a Political process. It they really want to get rid of Trump still think they would be better positioned by nominating someone electable with policies that make sense.

Re: Impeachment
 

Antichrist would be a step up.

Re: Impeachment
 

And I'm Republican how? Great assumption. I'm just sick of seeing Democrats not give a single shit about this country, their constituents or any of their half-baked policies. As I stated before, they clearly hate the President more than they love this country or the oath they've been sworn to.

All I'm saying is, this impeachment investigation is half-cocked. As of *right now*, there is not significant evidence and again, just to clear that up for as you're clearly being obtuse - right now, there is not enough evidence. Not saying there won't be, but as of right now, no.

Hopefully even you can understand that.

Re: Impeachment
 

My sentence doesn't say you are a Republican.

Re: Impeachment
 

Follow up to the points that I wrote above now that the actual whistleblower complaint has been revealed.
1. The actual transcript wasn't put into the normal system that makes it accessible, but instead hidden in the top secret recordings that is usually reserved for code-word level discussions. This is reportedly not the first time that this has been done with a normal Trump phone call.
2. The money for Ukraine (which was already approved by congress) was put on hold by direction of the president while he waited to see if they would "play ball". So the quid pro quo is now provable.
3. The company that Biden's son was involved with was not under investigation by the guy that Biden got sacked.

Lots of information in the complaint about how Giuliani has been used to subvert the normal diplomatic process.

Shows how well the misinformation campaign is going when people catch a whiff of this and assume it is just a witch hunt. This is a big deal and unlike the others it has a paper trail a mile wide. How many more Republican senators will retire rather than vote to keep Trump in power?

Re: Impeachment
 

1, And, so what?

2. Your conclusion, not a fact.

3. That whole thing is quite fascinating and I have read various stories about it, the biggest question in my mind is why he was ever appointed to the position in the first place, I will not go into his dubious history but the only know reason is that he is Biden's son.

Re: Impeachment
 

Sadly I am not seeing even a hint that this may lead to discussing nepotism, and the ease at which those connected to the rich and powerful waltz in to positions of power and influence themselves. Probably the last place the Trump family want it to go too.