Here is my "take" on the impeachment inquiry, that it violates the 6th Ammendment

a reply to: ketsuko

And again if you read again Adam Schiff always finds a way to blame or suggest well err Trump tried to ask for help to interleave in election.

meeting that the Ukrainian president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to intervene in the U.S. election to help the president."

Yet when Hillary Clinton asked something a year ago all i heard from the news media were crickets. This doesn't justify what democrats are doing to Trump. For two years and a half all they did is whine and whine or push for ridiculous impeachments over nothing.

The democrats cant win on immigration knowing majority of them want open borders.

a reply to: ChefFox

Yet when Hillary Clinton asked something a year ago all i heard from the news media were crickets.

Firstly, how are you aware she asked a question if not for the media? Do you have voices telling you things or read a super sekret tweet?
Secondly, it clearly upset you to still be triggered a year later so, what was it she said that could effect her presidency? You know she lost right? You are aware of your surroundings, what year it is? Are voices telling you she should be investigated?

originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: ChefFox

Yet when Hillary Clinton asked something a year ago all i heard from the news media were crickets.

Firstly, how are you aware she asked a question if not for the media? Do you have voices telling you things or read a super sekret tweet?
Secondly, it clearly upset you to still be triggered a year later so, what was it she said that could effect her presidency? You know she lost right? You are aware of your surroundings, what year it is? Are voices telling you she should be investigated?

She can ask something, but Trump cannot. It was proof of collusion when he joked about Russia and her emails at a rally.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: F4guy

You are stretching the metaphor beyond all reason and usefullness.

This quote addresses the matter completely, accurately, and from a qualified source:

“The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution,”

The Impeachment Process in the House - Congressional Research Service

Please read it again, and for god's sakes stop the mindless repetitions of White House talking points.

I really think you are replying to the wrong guy. I don't repeat WH talking points. I was talking about what an arraignment is as opposed to a grand jury proceeding.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, that is how it works apparently, you aren't wrong.

However, the Democrats are going to be interviewing witnesses and things on television soon to bring everything out in the open and make a case for the American people. I don't think they will have much trouble making the logical case that Trump should be impeached based on the evidence provided out in the open on television. I see enough evidence to make the logical case, myself, even without what hasn't been made public.

If there wasn't a reasonable reason to impeach Trump, I wouldn't support it, so. I think you are counting on Trump's lies and manipulations to turn out to be true, which will be hard to hold up forever, IMO. I wouldn't put your faith in Trump. He's not a trustworthy fellow.

If Trump was able to get away with breaking Presidential boundaries without consequences, that would be what would set a precedent.

Anyways, what I meant by a political process is, even if it is obvious Trump should logically be impeached, Republicans don't HAVE to vote for it in the Senate! So it being a political process will probably go in Trump's favor, to be honest.