This Is The Lawyer Democrats Used For "Testimony" To Proceed With Impeachment

[travestyny]

Dont get something wrong and in the process give a rabid superfan some potential Gotcha! points.

To borrow the famous words of the black philosopher DMX,

"Mind your business, lady."

[JimRaynor]

But there is a big difference between what Biden did and what Trump did. To make it simple we can say all 3 (I'm not aware of Clinton's incident) did it, but that still wouldn't make it right. Withholding aid for political gain has to be wrong and certainly should be impeachable. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

Here is a link (a lefty link at that) that highlighted how Clinton and the DNC got together with Ukraine back in 2016 to try and dig up dirt on Trump. So for Dems to impeach Trump over this, while they did the same exact thing back in 2017 is sheer hypocrisy. I don't think what either of them Trump or Clinton did is right, but to impeach over this when this is how they all the play the game, that's a no no.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

But in any event, it's clear that this woman despises Trump. I'm sure the Dims knew that ahead of time and just likely didn't care. Whether her bias clouded her testimony, I suppose only she knows for sure, but I can see why some would cry foul.

But then again, they brought in 3 of these guys. Did Republicans just go crazy looking into all of these guys? What was found on the other 2? I think I remember hearing a little thing about one of them, but not the other. You guys must be up his ass with a flashlight by now tho! lol

All you had to do is just google these guys, they were very open with their disdain for Trump. However, if the Democrats are trying to sell this impeachment to the American public, at the very least they coud've found lawyers that were half way neutral who still sided with them, but this is ridiculous.

[JimRaynor]

That's actually not true.

The aid was given and there was no Investigation of Biden or his cokehead son.

Dont get something wrong and in the process give a rabid superfan some potential Gotcha! points.


But you are correct, he did respond with fallacy (non sequitur) as opposed to responding to the topic/points at hand.

That happens when one refuses to be formally educated on the basics of debate, but instead just goes around e-arguing and always anointing himself 'wins'.

You might be right, but to me, whether aid was withheld or not, to me that is not an impeachable offense, aid is always withheld on some sort of pre condition. However, in this case it is near impossible to prove that aid was withheld in regards to investigating Bidens son. Personally I think he wanted to find out more about the 2016 election, and the Biden thing was an added caveat.

[travestyny]

Here is a link (a lefty link at that) that highlighted how Clinton and the DNC got together with Ukraine back in 2017 to try and dig up dirt on Trump. So for Dems to impeach Trump over this, while they did the same exact thing back in 2017 is sheer hypocrisy. I don't think what either of them Trump or Clinton did is right, but to impeach over this when this is how they all the play the game, that's a no no.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

But the point I was making is if that is the case, then Clinton should have been impeached as well. In that case, what actions were taken by republicans? If they didn't act, that's on them, isn't it?

All you had to do is just google these guys, they were very open with their disdain for Trump. However, if the Democrats are trying to sell this impeachment to the American public, at the very least they coud've found lawyers that were half way neutral who still sided with them, but this is ridiculous.

Ok. I'll try to find what they are saying about the other two guys. I think maybe you or someone else mentioned something about it here, so I'll look through the responses. I would think that at least one of them wouldn't have been so out there with anti-trump remarks. If not, that's definitely pretty brash of the dems

[travestyny]

Here is the other doofus lawyer the Dems brought to testify. This is him tweeting back in 2017, when Trump was only a mere 5 months in office.

Ok, I see this one. But what exactly is it in reference to? I mean, isn't that why they brought him in? To lend expert testimony regarding whether something is impeachable? I think this one needs more info.

[1bad65]

You might be right, but to me, whether aid was withheld or not, to me that is not an impeachable offense, aid is always withheld on some sort of pre condition. However, in this case it is near impossible to prove that aid was withheld in regards to investigating Bidens son. Personally I think he wanted to find out more about the 2016 election, and the Biden thing was an added caveat.

Correct again.

We've always attached strings/conditions to foreign aid. Every President has. You are correct there too.

That's why we give aid to countries who do things we like, and dont give aid to countries that dont do things we like.

If it weren't for conditions, we'd just write foreign aid checks to every country, regardless of how they act.

This is common sense and basic Civics and History. Which is why the "stupid" ones cant grasp it.

[man down]

Why are people tripping on impeachment. Let it snow! Lol. I'm ready and the public is ready to hear both sides. Can't wait, lets get it on!

We know what the Dems are up to and so does everyone else. "If we don't impeach he'll win again".

[travestyny]

All you had to do is just google these guys

Apparently the other guy is trusted by Dems and Repubs.

For the second time, Michael J. Gerhardt will appear before Congress as an expert on impeachment. In 1998, when President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment, he was the only expert on a panel of 19 witnesses summoned by both parties to offer insight into the process.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/u...-gerhardt.html

[aboutfkntime]

Why are people tripping on impeachment. Let it snow! Lol. I'm ready and the public is ready to hear both sides. Can't wait, lets get it on!

We know what the Dems are up to and so does everyone else. "If we don't impeach he'll win again".

clearly obvious