RNC has money haul over DNC.

There shouldn't be a matter of opinion in that. A POTUS has every right to withhold funds from a government in order to have them assist in a criminal investigation.

You make the raw assumption that it was solely in order to go after a political opponent. That is opinion that you appear to take as fact. Originally Posted by eccielover

No, it is my opinion on the subject. What is and is not an impeachable offense is subjective.

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, or tax evasion.”

Also:

"The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388. Treason is defined in the Constitution. Bribery is not, but it had a clear common law meaning and is now well covered by statute. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.864 Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning."

If the above is true, I would consider Trump's alleged actions to violate several of those "high crimes and misdemeanors".

I support the investigation. If Trump is not impeached I will fully support that decision.

If you watch SportsCenter on ESPN, they use the term "historic" at least 3 times an hour. 7 times an hour when Stuart Scott was alive. It's like the overuse of the term "extreme" on MSNBC.

No, it is my opinion on the subject. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fair enough.

Seems to be a he said, she said issue as to whether Trump was going specifically after a political opponent or investigating into allegations of corruption of a previous administration.

A case can easily be made for the latter and has been the position of almost all directly involved, minus those throwing in raw supposition on the topic.

But it is a matter of definition and if the House chooses it to have to the level of "high Crimes" then I also support the actions of impeachment.

The Senate will kill it as the obvious political stunt it is/was.

And Trump will merrily move on with his re-election effort with all of the dollars he is receiving and a handicapped Dem House after being neutered by the Senate.

Fair enough.

Seems to be a he said, she said issue as to whether Trump was going specifically after a political opponent or investigating into allegations of corruption of a previous administration.

A case can easily be made for the latter and has been the position of almost all directly involved, minus those throwing in raw supposition on the topic.

But it is a matter of definition and if the House chooses it to have to the level of "high Crimes" then I also support the actions of impeachment.

The Senate will kill it as the obvious political stunt it is/was.

And Trump will merrily move on with his re-election effort with all of the dollars he is receiving and a handicapped Dem House after being neutered by the Senate. Originally Posted by eccielover

It is obvious that if the House decides to impeach, the Senate will not convict. Which party would come out ahead if this scenario is followed is up for debate.

The Biden-Ukraine incident happened in 2016. No one at that time gave it any thought as to it being a criminal act. Now 3 years later, with Joe Biden being one of the leading Democratic contenders trying to unseat Trump in 2020, Trump is contending that there was something illicit being done by the Bidens, with absolutely no proof. That sounds political to me.

It is obvious that if the House decides to impeach, the Senate will not convict. Which party would come out ahead if this scenario is followed is up for debate.

The Biden-Ukraine incident happened in 2016. No one at that time gave it any thought as to it being a criminal act. Now 3 years later, with Joe Biden being one of the leading Democratic contenders trying to unseat Trump in 2020, Trump is contending that there was something illicit being done by the Bidens, with absolutely no proof. That sounds political to me. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That's actually funny. There is absolute evidence currently being investigated as to Quid Pro Joe. And it's only lately as a result of other investigations that much of the details of 3 years ago is coming out to be investigated. Hide your head in the sand about it, but it's currently being investigated.
What's your statute of limitations on a criminal act by a politician?

That's actually funny. There is absolute evidence currently being investigated as to Quid Pro Joe. And it's only lately as a result of other investigations that much of the details of 3 years ago is coming out to be investigated. Hide your head in the sand about it, but it's currently being investigated.
What's your statute of limitations on a criminal act by a politician? Originally Posted by eccielover

"Biden was on Burisma’s board when his father, while serving as vice president in the Obama administration, pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor in that country because of concerns that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption.

Joe Biden’s stance was in line with that of European governments with concern about corruption in Ukraine.

But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have argued that Joe Biden was acting out of concern that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, and, by extension, that Joe Biden had acted improperly by supposedly trying to protect his son.
There is no evidence that Trump or Giuliani has produced which shows that Hunter Biden was engaged in wrongdoing in his work for Burisma."

https://www.axios.com/joe-hunter-bid...51759063c.html

So far I can find no one in the Ukraine or the U,S, that contends that anything Joe Biden did was beneficial to Hunger.

"Biden was on Burisma’s board when his father, while serving as vice president in the Obama administration, pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor in that country because of concerns that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption.

Joe Biden’s stance was in line with that of European governments with concern about corruption in Ukraine.

But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have argued that Joe Biden was acting out of concern that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, and, by extension, that Joe Biden had acted improperly by supposedly trying to protect his son.
There is no evidence that Trump or Giuliani has produced which shows that Hunter Biden was engaged in wrongdoing in his work for Burisma."

https://www.axios.com/joe-hunter-bid...51759063c.html

So far I can find no one in the Ukraine or the U,S, that contends that anything Joe Biden did was beneficial to Hunger. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Speedy, what Burisma did was beneficial to HUNTER. To the tune of 3 million dollars. And the Ukraine fired the prosecutor set to interview HUNTER after Joe Pro Quo demanded it. Biden is on tape saying it. Open you’re eyes and ears.

It's an uphill battle for the Dems right now to take the senate. I've posted articles several times already in here(I can find again if someone wants), but the country is divided right now down a fairly strong ideological line with about 20 states being almost totally Dem controlled, and 30 states being almost totally Rep controlled. From a Senate standpoint this bodes well for Reps. Originally Posted by eccielover

I'd be very interested in reading those if it's easy for you to find them.

[COLOR="Red"]"Biden was on Burisma’s board when his father, while serving as vice president in the Obama administration, pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor in that country because of concerns that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption.

Joe Biden’s stance was in line with that of European governments with concern about corruption in Ukraine. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

My belief is that Joe Biden actually was unknowingly working against his son's best interest. Biden helped get Viktor Shokin, Ukrainian Prosecutor General, fired. Contrary to what Shokin and another Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko said, Shokin had pigeon holed the Burisma investigation and a lot of others. A Burisma investigation was more likely after Shokin was gone.

As to Hunter Biden's directorship in a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch, it stinks to high heaven.

"Biden was on Burisma’s board when his father, while serving as vice president in the Obama administration, pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor in that country because of concerns that the prosecutor was not doing enough to fight corruption.

Joe Biden’s stance was in line with that of European governments with concern about corruption in Ukraine.

But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have argued that Joe Biden was acting out of concern that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma, and, by extension, that Joe Biden had acted improperly by supposedly trying to protect his son.
There is no evidence that Trump or Giuliani has produced which shows that Hunter Biden was engaged in wrongdoing in his work for Burisma."

https://www.axios.com/joe-hunter-bid...51759063c.html

So far I can find no one in the Ukraine or the U,S, that contends that anything Joe Biden did was beneficial to Hunger. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Quid Pro Joe delivered U.S. taxpayer dollars to advance Ukrainian energy development, AKA "Burisma", and a billion of those U.S. dollars disappeared into the pockets of corrupt businessmen in the Ukrainian energy sector, AKA "Burisma", and some of those dollars ended up in Hunter Biden's pay checks.

Money is fungible.

If you had your blinders cinched any tighter the top of your head would pop.

Again, you are clueless as to how I feel about Warren and her "Medicare for All" plans.

The impeachment process is being done the correct way in my opinion. A whistle-blower came forward with a complaint that needed to be investigated. It is being investigated. If the Democratic House proceeds to impeachment with baseless charges then it will be very bad for Democrats in the future.

It is a matter of opinion whether or not the POTUS, no matter who that might be, by withholding funds from a government in order to force that government to investigate a political opponent is committing an impeachable offense. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In your opinion...behind closed doors with no transparency...don't even know who the accuser is and this is how impeachment proceedings are conducted.
Only in your TDS world would you not see that this is a complete sham...why no vote in the house on this "by the book" process as in slick willy's impeachment?
Only you and all the TDS crowd would consider this anything but a political hit job.
Like I said before SPEED with this radical front runners Medicare-for-all socialist garbage...and all you say is "she hasn't explained how she is going to pay for it".
Wake the fuck up there isn't enough money to pay for it...if this bitch is the nominee it will be a Trump landslide.
The vast majority of people in America do not go for this socialist nonsense.
Is socialism still a bad word to you SPEED?? I wouldn't want to hurt your "FEELINGS"
In regards to her Medicare-for-all plan most ALL the people in America KNOW it sucks(even DEMS)...you just haven't gotten over your COMPLETE TDS!!

I'd be very interested in reading those if it's easy for you to find them. Originally Posted by Tiny

Here is one of them. And I did mis-speak. the 30 to 20 ratio was only for state legislatures. The full control including governor was only roughly 22 to 15 in favor of Republicans.

But it does show the very partisan nature of the states and the lean toward Rebuplican these days, which still makes the Senate a tough goal for Dems.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/nati...daa04c73b.html

Speedy, what Burisma did was beneficial to HUNTER. To the tune of 3 million dollars. And the Ukraine fired the prosecutor set to interview HUNTER after Joe Pro Quo demanded it. Biden is on tape saying it. Open you’re eyes and ears. Originally Posted by bambino

You get something half right and try and turn the whole thing into fact.




Joe had him fired because he would not look into corruption. Not because he was going to look into Hunter Biden. Do you just parrot Rudy's talking points?

Here is one of them. And I did mis-speak. the 30 to 20 ratio was only for state legislatures. The full control including governor was only roughly 22 to 15 in favor of Republicans.

But it does show the very partisan nature of the states and the lean toward Rebuplican these days, which still makes the Senate a tough goal for Dems.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/nati...daa04c73b.html Originally Posted by eccielover

Thanks for that. If I understand correctly, Republicans control both houses in 31 states, Democrats in 18 states, and Minnesota is split. That is a good omen for the U.S. Senate.

Thanks for that. If I understand correctly, Republicans control both houses in 31 states, Democrats in 18 states, and Minnesota is split. That is a good omen for the U.S. Senate. Originally Posted by Tiny

Good being very very subjective.