The Blue Avatar silence on impeachment is an embarrassment.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

[Xing]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

Those are arguments for voting Democratic, not arguments for the removal of a President.

[Pericles]

Fuzzy, Biden did nothing improper in Ukraine, it is a totally fake scandal. There was bipartisan support in the US (this is an example of that) and from the international community (so the EU, IMF and other organizations) for firing the prosecutor, because he was not investigating corruption strongly enough. The investigation into Burisma was focused on the period of 2010-2012, before Hunter Biden joined the company, and was not occurring while Hunter Biden was at the company.

Trump literally asked Zelensky to do him a favor, that seems so obviously an example of impropriety. More evidence is coming out every day highlighting Trump's wrongdoing here. Ukraine investigating Hunter Biden and creating the appearance of a scandal around the Bidens would clearly be 'something of value' to Trump and his re-election campaign. Looking at the conversation, which itself is just a summary and given it was released by Trump the full transcript probably makes him look worse, Trump clearly is pushing Zelensky to create what is essentially a fake scandal and interfere in US politics in the process. More evidence is coming out on this point every day. This points to Trump abusing his powers and breaking his Oath of Office, and is a new level of unfitness to serve from him that warrants his removal from office. If this isn't impeachable, nothing is, and the presidency would be a four-year monarchy without any accountability and above the rule of law, going completely against what the Founders wanted and what any reasonable person should want.

[Xing]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

Those are arguments for voting Democratic, not arguments for the removal of a President.

Come on, you're better than this. Even if this in and of itself not grounds for removing Trump, it is certainly grounds for an inquiry, as well as having those involved with the call testify before Congress.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

Those are arguments for voting Democratic, not arguments for the removal of a President.

Come on, you're better than this. Even if this in and of itself not grounds for removing Trump, it is certainly grounds for an inquiry, as well as having those involved with the call testify before Congress.

Then let the entire House vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry.  Put them all on the record.

Pelosi doesn't want to do this, due to Dems in Trump districts.  Too bad.  Let the entire House authorize the inquiry.  Absent that, there is no legislative purpose established for their actions.

[Pericles]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

Those are arguments for voting Democratic, not arguments for the removal of a President.

Come on, you're better than this. Even if this in and of itself not grounds for removing Trump, it is certainly grounds for an inquiry, as well as having those involved with the call testify before Congress.

Then let the entire House vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry.  Put them all on the record.

Pelosi doesn't want to do this, due to Dems in Trump districts.  Too bad.  Let the entire House authorize the inquiry.  Absent that, there is no legislative purpose established for their actions.

Many of those Dems have already publicly announced support for the impeachment inquiry. The process is moving along at an appropriate pace.

[Xing]

I know I'm not a blue av, but I'm right-wing, and I've been saying for over a year that Trump needs to be held accountable for his theft of American taxpayer dollars through his hotels. If you don't care about this then I never want to hear you even say the word "corruption" in relation to another politician ever again. Any "fiscally responsible" Republicans standing with Trump despite this should be ashamed.

Ukraine is just icing on the cake.

When I mentioned the same thing, a few red avatars said (and I imagine there are a great number more who silently agree with them) that it would be too complicated for the average American to understand, and might distract from Ukraine.  

It shouldn't be that hard to explain to people.  If you can't do it, step aside and let someone else do the talking. 

I think it's actually easier to explain. Why bother going through this convoluted labyrinth of international intrigue, pee-pee tapes, dossiers, collusion, and hearsay when you can just straight-up point to blatant evidence that Trump is defrauding the American taxpayer and is profiting off of his position?

That's not an argument for impeachment.

That's an argument to not vote for him for reelection a mere 13 months from now.  That's a reason to vote for one of his primary challengers. 

There are many good reasons for liberals and for conservatives to not vote for Trump (although those reasons may differ amongst each group).  There are not good reasons to attempt to impeach and remove him; the failure of a President to avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Trump was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the system that we have had in place to elect Presidents for beyond my entire lifetime.  That he did not win the popular vote does not make him any less legitimate a President, and he did not engage in illegal activities to alter vote counts.  In addition, I have watched EVERY narrative to date against Trump fall apart upon close scrutiny.  Now maybe the next one will succeed, and I'll alter my position, but I'm not counting on this, based on the track record of narratives that have proven faulty in the end. 

One thing I hope is that we end the idea that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" can mean "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [them] to be at a moment in history".  That definition was thrown out by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford in his attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas, and was, IMO, the low point of Ford's generally honorable career.  Because if it fails to mean that, what happens when President Warren does something that folks look askance at?  Or President Booker?  Will Biden be under investigation if he goes all the way in 2020?  Will it happen even before the Electoral College meets?  Will Biden's Administration be four (4) years of Ukraine, Hunter Biden, and Burisma?

If you hate Trump, vote him out.  If you believe him less than ethical, vote him out.  It's not impossible; indeed, it's even likely.  But it's long overdue that America put the Impeachment Genie back in the bottle and let it out only when we're honestly talking about Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  I've not endorsed Trump for re-election, and I may not, but I certainly oppose this impeachment, and I view it as partisan politics at taxpayers' expense.

But Trump asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponents is illegal . He admitted on live tv that he broke the law so it’s not just about disliking Trump anymore as I disliked Trump but opposed impeaching him before the Ukraine scandal .

I agree with Old School Republican here, Fuzzy. If we were merely talking about a policy disagreement or dislike of Trump in general, then yes, a vote in an election would be the way to express that. However, we can't leave it up to an election to decide whether or not the president is above the law. The purpose of checks and balances is not to throw all judgment to the voters, who can't even have access to every relevant piece of information. It's to make sure that the executive is not abusing his/her power. And when you have a president who asks a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and then publicly invites another foreign power to intervene, you have a volatile situation which must be addressed immediately, and not put on the ballot more than a year later.

Then what are we to say of Biden, who demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor?

I will agree that Trump has not avoided the appearance of impropriety here, but there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.  There is, indeed, something of a quid pro quo on Biden. 

The law you speak of prevents a foreign nation giving "something of value" to assist a person in a political campaign.  Trump's acts arguably do not meed that definition.  Now if you wish to talk about injecting Rudy Giuliani, Esquire into foreign affairs, that is another issue, but that is also a question of public policy. 

I will also note that Pelosi's refusal (to date) to call for the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry is telling.  She wants the impeachment process to go forth without putting anyone on record.  That's not how it works, or how it should work.  If people want an impeachment inquiry, they ought to vote for it and authorize the funds formally, as well as set forth rules to ensure due process.  Otherwise, what would be the "Legislative Purpose" for a committee to issue subpoenas, depose witnesses, etc. 

Every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited.  Those that defend them today look hopelessly partisan.  Now that doesn't mean that if we keep going on and on, we won't find The Impeachable Turd.  But let's be real; from Collusion to The Whistleblower, there has not been an impeachable narrative that sticks without some sort of Goalpost Moving.  That's the bottom line for me.  The case to vote against Trump can be compelling.  The case for impeachment is not, at least not from what I have seen so far.

I didn't mention Biden at all, since that's a separate matter. I think claiming that information or assistance in finding information on an opponent is not "something of value" is an enormous stretch, since obviously Biden is a potential political opponent of Trump. Withholding military aid as a bargaining chip for the information certainly sounds a lot like quid pro quo to me.

As for Pelosi not yet calling for an impeachment inquiry, it's still early. If it's been months and she still hasn't called for a vote, then we can talk about all of this being a ploy for attention without any call to action. I really don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that "every anti-Trump narrative has been discredited", while looking at Trump's behavior as well as his public statements. This is not how an innocent man who has nothing to hide acts, and certainly not how a man perfectly fit for the presidency speaks.

Those are arguments for voting Democratic, not arguments for the removal of a President.

Come on, you're better than this. Even if this in and of itself not grounds for removing Trump, it is certainly grounds for an inquiry, as well as having those involved with the call testify before Congress.

Then let the entire House vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry.  Put them all on the record.

Pelosi doesn't want to do this, due to Dems in Trump districts.  Too bad.  Let the entire House authorize the inquiry.  Absent that, there is no legislative purpose established for their actions.

If the vote doesn't happen, you'll have a point, but as I've said, it's early.

[°Leprechaun]

...I'm sorry, but this thread is silly. Atlas posters are not public officials, they don't have a duty to be honest and transparent to their constituents. If they feel enough personal shame about supporting an obvious crook that they'd rather disengage from politics than defend him, good for them, it means there's still a part of them that harbors doubts. And if that part is nourished and encouraged enough, they might be rescued from the cult. I'd much rather that than they continue spouting blatantly dishonest nonsense.

Good post.
The real embarrassment is the silence of many GOP Senators. Understandably they are afraid of losing their jobs. Are the rumors that 30-35 would vote to convict were it not for their fear of "political suicide", true? I could always be wrong, but I seriously doubt that 20 (or more) of them will vote to convict.
This whole impeachment conundrum reminds of Clinton's impeachment, even though such a comparison is certainly a false equivalency. The argument against Trump's impeachment, "what he did was wrong and possibly illegal, but that doesn't make it impeachable" is eerily familiar. The exact same argument was made about Clinton. I remember thinking at the time that it was a waste of time to impeach Clinton since there was no way that it would lead to a conviction. The same could be said about Trump, although as I said the grounds for impeachment for Clinton and for Trump are not the same. Breaking the law is the only similarity, but the two cases are not at the same, clearly.

[Flyersfan232]

It felt like yesterday that every second thread in U.S General Discussion was about AOC, Omar or how we had nothing to fear from white supremacy. But now? Silence. Deliberately not talking, even to dissent about ongoing impeachment proceedings.

How very delicate.

Cause this entire website outside of a few bases folk and libertarians is just a echo chamber.

[Joe Republic]

It felt like yesterday that every second thread in U.S General Discussion was about AOC, Omar or how we had nothing to fear from white supremacy. But now? Silence. Deliberately not talking, even to dissent about ongoing impeachment proceedings.

How very delicate.

Because this entire website outside of a few bases (??) folk and libertarians is just an echo chamber.

This forum has admittedly always had a left of center bias.  But the reason for that is fairly simple; the initial draw here is Dave’s wealth of data and maps.  Conservatives often don’t have the patience or interest in nerdy things like facts.

[SNJ1985]

It felt like yesterday that every second thread in U.S General Discussion was about AOC, Omar or how we had nothing to fear from white supremacy. But now? Silence. Deliberately not talking, even to dissent about ongoing impeachment proceedings.

How very delicate.

Because this entire website outside of a few bases (??) folk and libertarians is just an echo chamber.

This forum has admittedly always had a left of center bias.  But the reason for that is fairly simple; the initial draw here is Dave’s wealth of data and maps.  Conservatives often don’t have the patience or interest in nerdy things like facts.

One of the biggest contributors to this place's wealth of data and maps is conservative poster realisticidealist. I'm pretty certain that he has contributed more on that front than a majority of red avatars have.

[Joe Republic]

Did you skip the word "often"?

Barry Sanders may have been an amazing running back, but the Detroit Lions still sucked.

[Badger]

It felt like yesterday that every second thread in U.S General Discussion was about AOC, Omar or how we had nothing to fear from white supremacy. But now? Silence. Deliberately not talking, even to dissent about ongoing impeachment proceedings.

How very delicate.

Cause this entire website outside of a few bases folk and libertarians is just a echo chamber.

Which is of course a complete and thorough explanation for why conservatives can't come up with a single valid defense Trump and why he shouldn't be impeached.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     After witnessing dozens of false alarms over the past few years where there was something just down the road that was assured to take down Trump once and for all, I'm not going to spend my rather limited free time entertaining Atlas's melodrama on topics that don't interest me any more than my position as moderator obligates me to. If y'all count that as moral cowardice, then that's your problem and not mine.

[afleitch]

     After witnessing dozens of false alarms over the past few years where there was something just down the road that was assured to take down Trump once and for all, I'm not going to spend my rather limited free time entertaining Atlas's melodrama on topics that don't interest me any more than my position as moderator obligates me to. If y'all count that as moral cowardice, then that's your problem and not mine.

You have nearly 29k posts. And you can't comment on the biggest constitutional crisis in US politics in the 18 years the forum has been online.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     After witnessing dozens of false alarms over the past few years where there was something just down the road that was assured to take down Trump once and for all, I'm not going to spend my rather limited free time entertaining Atlas's melodrama on topics that don't interest me any more than my position as moderator obligates me to. If y'all count that as moral cowardice, then that's your problem and not mine.

You have nearly 29k posts. And you can't comment on the biggest constitutional crisis in US politics in the 18 years the forum has been online.

     I made the bulk of those posts a decade ago. Times have changed, priorities have changed.

[fhtagn]

Atlas's melodrama

the biggest constitutional crisis in US politics in the 18 years the forum has been online.

I see PiT's point has been proven pretty quickly.

[afleitch]

Atlas's melodrama

the biggest constitutional crisis in US politics in the 18 years the forum has been online.

I see PiT's point has been proven pretty quickly.

I'll hear you out. Name a bigger constitutional crisis than the impeachment of a U.S. President, since 2002.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Can’t help but laugh how Fuzzy who would go on these long rants about how impeaching Trump over firing Comey would be this great injustice yet not only has he drank the koolaid on Biden but somehow thinks that is wrong

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It felt like yesterday that every second thread in U.S General Discussion was about AOC, Omar or how we had nothing to fear from white supremacy. But now? Silence. Deliberately not talking, even to dissent about ongoing impeachment proceedings.

How very delicate.

Because this entire website outside of a few bases (??) folk and libertarians is just an echo chamber.

This forum has admittedly always had a left of center bias.  But the reason for that is fairly simple; the initial draw here is Dave’s wealth of data and maps.  Conservatives often don’t have the patience or interest in nerdy things like facts.

Conservatives DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC!!*


*facts and logic not included. no actual conservatives were harmed in the production of this hot take.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Atlas's melodrama

the biggest constitutional crisis in US politics in the 18 years the forum has been online.

I see PiT's point has been proven pretty quickly.

The President of the United States is asserting that he cannot be investigated, let alone indicted. He's asserting that Congress has no oversight powers on the executive branch. He's asserting that he can invoke blanket executive privilege on all current or former White House employees on all subjects. These together are a massive, massive constitutional crisis.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

As I've posted multiple times in a diverse number of places throughout the Internet: The Russia Hoax was proven wrong and most Americans realize that it was a politically motivated witch hunt. The same thing will eventually happen with the Ukraine.

The reason many blue avatars are 'silent' is because they are intelligent, and realize what a 'waste of time' is. Hint: Waste of time to argue about things that many users are delusional about in a "Moon Landing Was Faked" kind of way.

[morgankingsley]

As I've posted multiple times in a diverse number of places throughout the Internet: The Russia Hoax was proven wrong and most Americans realize that it was a politically motivated witch hunt. The same thing will eventually happen with the Ukraine.

The reason many blue avatars are 'silent' is because they are intelligent, and realize what a 'waste of time' is. Hint: Waste of time to argue about things that many users are delusional about in a "Moon Landing Was Faked" kind of way.

Why is your avatar red

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Why is your avatar red

I'm a registered Democrat because New York is a closed primary state and elections are mostly decided in the Democratic primary. I intend on voting for the weakest candidate in the NY Primaries next year, OR an admirable 'good' Democrat like Tulsi Gabbard or even Marianne Williamson or Andrew Yang.

Also, it is possible to find someone's party affiliation and address in New York as long as you know their name, birthday, and zip code: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/

There is the possibility that I get outed as a Republican if I were registered as such, which is dangerous due to the fact that I have successfully infiltrated certain....political organizations that wouldn't take kindly to that.