New Poll, Majority don't want Trump Impeached/Removed.

[Francee89]

There's an old REO Speedwagon song with the lines, "Heard it from a friend who...heard it from a friend...".....

I've read the transcript and both my husband and I have watched a good portion of the impeaching hearings, and it doesn't appear that there's much if any corroboration of "Quid Pro Quo" on the part of the President.

And while I know that several other news sources that do considerable biased reporting, yet are still IMO, a much more reliable source than CNN who has been caught fabricating and outright lying.

Not that it needs to be a quid pro quo to be impeachable, but what else does it point to when he had a call in which he asked for favors that just happen to benefit him politically (which was so concerning that Lt. Col. Vindman reported it immediately and his own staff tried to cover it up), then proceeded to inexplicably withhold the aid, only releasing it once a whistleblower complaint had been filed?

Do you think it’s appropriate for the President to ask other countries to investigate his political opponents, using his personal lawyer (who has said he was/is working in the interests of Trump, not the United States) as a middleman? That if there’s any doubt that was what he was doing, he proceeded to openly asked China to investigate the Bidens as well? It’s notable that while elected Republicans will complain about the process and Democrats not liking Schiff, they’ll either lie about or just not even try to defend Trump’s actual conduct here.

Because the Democrats never lie? Ever? At any time? I realize that is not what you've said necessarily but I am asking for a clarification.

I don't think it's any more or less appropriate for a sitting U.S. President to ask for these investigations any more than I do their predecessors yet, they did so, or members of their administration did so.

Do you think it's appropriate for congressional leaders to suggest that should Trump win a second term, they'll continue to push for impeachment again...and again...and again? What does that tell you personally?

It tells me that this is all about the politics, the fear that he'll win that second term (as some have already stated thus why they're even involved in this impeachment inquiry), and that they know he'll be acquitted of these current articles of impeachment.

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

[Deleted User 203]

Not that it needs to be a quid pro quo to be impeachable, but what else does it point to when he had a call in which he asked for favors that just happen to benefit him politically (which was so concerning that Lt. Col. Vindman reported it immediately and his own staff tried to cover it up), then proceeded to inexplicably withhold the aid, only releasing it once a whistleblower complaint had been filed?

Do you think it’s appropriate for the President to ask other countries to investigate his political opponents, using his personal lawyer (who has said he was/is working in the interests of Trump, not the United States) as a middleman? That if there’s any doubt that was what he was doing, he proceeded to openly asked China to investigate the Bidens as well? It’s notable that while elected Republicans will complain about the process and Democrats not liking Schiff, they’ll either lie about or just not even try to defend Trump’s actual conduct here.

Because the Democrats never lie? Ever? At any time? I realize that is not what you've said necessarily but I am asking for a clarification.

I don't think it's any more or less appropriate for a sitting U.S. President to ask for these investigations any more than I do their predecessors yet, they did so, or members of their administration did so.

Do you think it's appropriate for congressional leaders to suggest that should Trump win a second term, they'll continue to push for impeachment again...and again...and again? What does that tell you personally?

It tells me that this is all about the politics, the fear that he'll win that second term (as some have already stated thus why they're even involved in this impeachment inquiry), and that they know he'll be acquitted of these current articles of impeachment.

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

[Della]

Because the Democrats never lie? Ever? At any time? I realize that is not what you've said necessarily but I am asking for a clarification.

I don't think it's any more or less appropriate for a sitting U.S. President to ask for these investigations any more than I do their predecessors yet, they did so, or members of their administration did so.

Do you think it's appropriate for congressional leaders to suggest that should Trump win a second term, they'll continue to push for impeachment again...and again...and again? What does that tell you personally?

It tells me that this is all about the politics, the fear that he'll win that second term (as some have already stated thus why they're even involved in this impeachment inquiry), and that they know he'll be acquitted of these current articles of impeachment.

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

LOL, there's that John Solomon opinion piece again.

"Solomon's stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as "an outright fabrication", but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon's claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon's claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon's Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]"

...

"Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani - Trump’s personal attorney – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community's assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas: "No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle." Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_So ... mmentator)


"Circa's reporting has been characterized by other media outlets as conservative.[7][24][8] Circa attracted attention for its reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which broke many stories seen to be favorable to the Trump administration.[7] According to The Hill, Circa's reporting on Russian interference has "only a peripheral focus on whether anyone in Trump’s inner circle had contact with Russian officials during the campaign".[7]

It has been reported that Sinclair had made an agreement with the Trump campaign to be given greater access in exchange for favorable coverage.[7][6] Solomon said that reporting in many mainstream outlets was "reckless, false, unfair and imbalanced".[7]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circa_News

[Francee89]

Because the Democrats never lie? Ever? At any time? I realize that is not what you've said necessarily but I am asking for a clarification.

I don't think it's any more or less appropriate for a sitting U.S. President to ask for these investigations any more than I do their predecessors yet, they did so, or members of their administration did so.

Do you think it's appropriate for congressional leaders to suggest that should Trump win a second term, they'll continue to push for impeachment again...and again...and again? What does that tell you personally?

It tells me that this is all about the politics, the fear that he'll win that second term (as some have already stated thus why they're even involved in this impeachment inquiry), and that they know he'll be acquitted of these current articles of impeachment.

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

If they don’t feel he did anything wrong, why the deflection about the process and the Democrat’s dislike of Trump, rather than defending Trump asking another country to investigate his political rival while withholding aid? None seem to want to say Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is appropriate, so they deflect.

Biden stating they withheld aid to Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor was official US policy, and that the prosecutor should go was the consensus of multiple other allied countries. He wasn’t freelancing for personal gain. That’s not at all the same as Trump asking a political rival be investigated (in consultation with his personal lawyer) while withholding aid - do you feel that’s appropriate? And are there any other examples of that happening, as you stated this has happened before? If there were, why aren’t Republicans presenting them as standard and appropriate? I’m sure they would be, if these examples existed. If it was normal and run of the mill, why did career public servants get alarmed and why did members of his own Administration try to cover it up?

Two Democrats have expressed willingness to impeach again, and neither is in a significant leadership position. Congress always has the right to hold the President accountable, and Trump has multiple ongoing issues, but it’s not some kind of widespread sentiment they’ll impeach over and over. Trump continues to refer to his call as “perfect”, so the idea he’s learned something is questionable.

[AllofFive19]

Do you find it odd that the people who do have firsthand knowledge have been ordered not to comply with subpoenas or testify under oath? If the call was as innocuous as you think, those with firsthand knowledge could testify under oath and put this to bed. But trump and the administration have not cooperated at all and refused to turn over relevant documents or testify. It's not good enough to say "they don't want to cooperate because they think it's a sham". Congress has both a constitutional right and obligation to check the executive branch and provide oversight. They are a co-equal branch and this precedent of non-compliance will not bode well in the future. If they are innocent, they have had every opportunity to prove it and are actively refusing.

then why wont adam schiff testify for the republicans? no one in their right mind wants to testify for people seeking to damage you

heres an idea, cops accuse you of a murder you didnt commit and they hate you for whatever reason then they request an interrogation, based on your logic if you choose to seek out a lawyer and not talk to them you're guilty.

They aren't going to fall for the turning the tables on the investigators to take attention away from the abuse of power which is the issue at hand.

And who is still using the excuse of "hearsay" ? Republicans have moved on from that. They have new excuses.

I don't know about Republican politicians, but I know Republicans still using "hearsay". They're also using Trump, Bush Jr and Sr, Reagan, and Nixon are all innocent and it's just the Democrats being mean ol' poopyheads. And as we all know, no Democratic president has ever had articles of impeachment pressed upon him, it's only been the Republicans. (I'm being sarcastic here, just in case it wasn't obvious.)

[Deleted User 203]

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

LOL, there's that John Solomon opinion piece again.

"Solomon's stories had significant flaws.[23][20] Not only had the State Department dismissed the allegations presented by Solomon as "an outright fabrication", but the Ukrainian prosecutor who Solomon claimed made the allegations to him is not supporting Solomon's claim.[23][20] Foreign Policy noted that anti-corrupton activists in Ukraine had characterized the source behind Solomon's claims as an unreliable narrator who had hindered anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[31] Solomon pushed allegations that Biden wanted to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to prevent an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian company that his son, Hunter Biden, served on; however, Western governments and anti-corruption activist wanted the prosecutor removed because he was reluctant to pursue corruption investigations.[20] By September 2019, Solomon said he still stood 100% by his stories.[23] There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by Ukrainian authorities.[32] WNYC characterized Solomon's Ukraine stories as laundering of foreign propaganda.[33]"

...

"Solomon worked closely with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani - Trump’s personal attorney – who was indicted for funneling foreign money into American political campaigns, to promote stories that Democrats colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election (the U.S. intelligence community's assessment is that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump, then a Republican presidential candidate). Parnas worked with Solomon on interviews and translation. Solomon defended his work with Parnas: "No one knew there was anything wrong with Lev Parnas at the time. Everybody who approaches me has an angle." Parnas helped to set Solomon up with the Ukrainian prosecutor who accused the Bidens of wrong-doing (before later retracting the claim).[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_So ... mmentator)


"Circa's reporting has been characterized by other media outlets as conservative.[7][24][8] Circa attracted attention for its reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which broke many stories seen to be favorable to the Trump administration.[7] According to The Hill, Circa's reporting on Russian interference has "only a peripheral focus on whether anyone in Trump’s inner circle had contact with Russian officials during the campaign".[7]

It has been reported that Sinclair had made an agreement with the Trump campaign to be given greater access in exchange for favorable coverage.[7][6] Solomon said that reporting in many mainstream outlets was "reckless, false, unfair and imbalanced".[7]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circa_News

I was not aware that this piece had been posted before.

Nevertheless, always be cautious when getting any source of information from Wikipedia.

It's said the site can be edited at any time.

When our youngest daughter was in high school (it was an online school) and in any report she had to write for both her honors classes as well as regular classes, they had to cite their sources for any information used. With each syllabus for those reports, it was warned that no student was to use Wikipedia as it was just not considered reliable.

[Deleted User 203]

I didn’t say anywhere that Democrats never lie - I simply stated that’s what many of the Republican Committee members are doing in their attempt to defend Trump, along with complaining about the process. They’re almost entirely unwilling to defend his actual conduct.

When did previous Presidents ask for foreign governments to speak with their personal lawyers to investigate their political rivals? What specific examples of this are you referring to?

Congress has the right and duty to investigate and hold the President accountable. If there’s an abuse of office or illegal conduct on his part, they have the right to open another impeachment inquiry, though I haven’t seen any “congressional leaders” say they plan to engage in an endless cycle of impeachment. What are you referring to?

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

If they don’t feel he did anything wrong, why the deflection about the process and the Democrat’s dislike of Trump, rather than defending Trump asking another country to investigate his political rival while withholding aid? None seem to want to say Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is appropriate, so they deflect.

Biden stating they withheld aid to Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor was official US policy, and that the prosecutor should go was the consensus of multiple other allied countries. He wasn’t freelancing for personal gain. That’s not at all the same as Trump asking a political rival be investigated (in consultation with his personal lawyer) while withholding aid - do you feel that’s appropriate? And are there any other examples of that happening, as you stated this has happened before? If there were, why aren’t Republicans presenting them as standard and appropriate? I’m sure they would be, if these examples existed. If it was normal and run of the mill, why did career public servants get alarmed and why did members of his own Administration try to cover it up?

Two Democrats have expressed willingness to impeach again, and neither is in a significant leadership position. Congress always has the right to hold the President accountable, and Trump has multiple ongoing issues, but it’s not some kind of widespread sentiment they’ll impeach over and over. Trump continues to refer to his call as “perfect”, so the idea he’s learned something is questionable.

I'm sorry but I do not feel they've deflected at all. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

I'm pretty certain we will not see eye-to-eye on this impeachment inquiry/impeachment, Francee. I feel that the Republicans have been defensive of Trump because they don't see where he did anything impeachment-worthy.

As for the questions you asked, I state again, you are (of course) free to look that up if you're inclined to.

That the two Democrats I've mentioned are not in leadership positions really doesn't matter. They are influential to voters in their districts and a part of the HoR in our country. I don't believe they fully understand that a judicial vote that took place today of 23-17 to now move on to the full HoR vote next week is quite telling (as always, IMO), as this isn't necessarily the landslide that so many Democrats have thought it would be.

These two congressional leaders have either misspoke, spoke up too much, or arrogantly do not realize how this makes the Democrats in the HoR come across to millions of votes in this country. THEY should not be dismissed because it's only two of them speaking publicly.

[Francee89]

I say they're not willing to defend what you call the "actual conduct" because they don't feel he did anything wrong.

One specific example of (in this case) a VP...a member of a presidential administration...bragging nearly about making threats to a foreign country is in Joe Biden and the issue he wished would go away from an interview in 2016 and when he and Obama were still in the White House:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... is-revived

As for specifically having a lawyer investigate political rivals, while I don't have THOSE specifics, I am sure you could find them if you're inclined to. I also don't believe for a second that President Trump is the only one to have done this sort of thing.

Karen Bass, D-CA 37th District and Al Green, D-TX 9th District are two that come to mind who've stated that should Trump be acquitted in the upcoming Senate trial after the holiday recess as is expected, they're both confident that the House will continue to pursue possible impeachment charges in the future.

In the interim, there are now some moderate Democrats coming forward, raising concerns about the current impeachment inquiry and the impact with their constituents.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderat ... d=67695821

The Democrat Whip is wanting each Democrat to decide for themselves vs attempting to 'whip' the impeachment vote:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/james-cly ... te-support

My point is, I hope that not only has our President learned some valuable lessons (I doubt it) but I hope our current congressional House members have learned as well.

I know I've been schooled, so to speak, on all of this and I've been left wondering if I can trust any one of them....congress or our President....when it comes to specific things.

If they don’t feel he did anything wrong, why the deflection about the process and the Democrat’s dislike of Trump, rather than defending Trump asking another country to investigate his political rival while withholding aid? None seem to want to say Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is appropriate, so they deflect.

Biden stating they withheld aid to Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor was official US policy, and that the prosecutor should go was the consensus of multiple other allied countries. He wasn’t freelancing for personal gain. That’s not at all the same as Trump asking a political rival be investigated (in consultation with his personal lawyer) while withholding aid - do you feel that’s appropriate? And are there any other examples of that happening, as you stated this has happened before? If there were, why aren’t Republicans presenting them as standard and appropriate? I’m sure they would be, if these examples existed. If it was normal and run of the mill, why did career public servants get alarmed and why did members of his own Administration try to cover it up?

Two Democrats have expressed willingness to impeach again, and neither is in a significant leadership position. Congress always has the right to hold the President accountable, and Trump has multiple ongoing issues, but it’s not some kind of widespread sentiment they’ll impeach over and over. Trump continues to refer to his call as “perfect”, so the idea he’s learned something is questionable.

I'm sorry but I do not feel they've deflected at all. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

I'm pretty certain we will not see eye-to-eye on this impeachment inquiry/impeachment, Francee. I feel that the Republicans have been defensive of Trump because they don't see where he did anything impeachment-worthy.

As for the questions you asked, I state again, you are (of course) free to look that up if you're inclined to.

That the two Democrats I've mentioned are not in leadership positions really doesn't matter. They are influential to voters in their districts and a part of the HoR in our country. I don't believe they fully understand that a judicial vote that took place today of 23-17 to now move on to the full HoR vote next week is quite telling (as always, IMO), as this isn't necessarily the landslide that so many Democrats have thought it would be.

These two congressional leaders have either misspoke, spoke up too much, or arrogantly do not realize how this makes the Democrats in the HoR come across to millions of votes in this country. THEY should not be dismissed because it's only two of them speaking publicly.

You don’t feel they’ve deflected at all? What have all the process complaints and complaints about Democrats not liking Trump, while failing to defend his conduct say? Just today, when asked whether it’s appropriate to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival Rep. Deb Lesko tried to claim that Trump didn’t. That’s a lie, likely because she knows it’s indefensible.

There’s nothing to look up, because there aren’t other examples of Presidents asking their personal lawyers to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid. Do you feel that’s an appropriate thing to do? Why?

You said “Congressional leaders”. It was a party line vote, and perfectly expected - did anyone expect a single Judiciary GOP member to vote yes? And what’s arrogant about stating a fact - Congress is allotted oversight power in the Constitution, and if the President is not removed and demonstrated an abuse of his power or office, he can be impeached again. Trump continues to insist his call was “perfect”, so there’s every risk of him doing something like it again, or of him having done something similar in the last three years coming to light.

[Deleted User 203]

If they don’t feel he did anything wrong, why the deflection about the process and the Democrat’s dislike of Trump, rather than defending Trump asking another country to investigate his political rival while withholding aid? None seem to want to say Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is appropriate, so they deflect.

Biden stating they withheld aid to Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor was official US policy, and that the prosecutor should go was the consensus of multiple other allied countries. He wasn’t freelancing for personal gain. That’s not at all the same as Trump asking a political rival be investigated (in consultation with his personal lawyer) while withholding aid - do you feel that’s appropriate? And are there any other examples of that happening, as you stated this has happened before? If there were, why aren’t Republicans presenting them as standard and appropriate? I’m sure they would be, if these examples existed. If it was normal and run of the mill, why did career public servants get alarmed and why did members of his own Administration try to cover it up?

Two Democrats have expressed willingness to impeach again, and neither is in a significant leadership position. Congress always has the right to hold the President accountable, and Trump has multiple ongoing issues, but it’s not some kind of widespread sentiment they’ll impeach over and over. Trump continues to refer to his call as “perfect”, so the idea he’s learned something is questionable.

I'm sorry but I do not feel they've deflected at all. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

I'm pretty certain we will not see eye-to-eye on this impeachment inquiry/impeachment, Francee. I feel that the Republicans have been defensive of Trump because they don't see where he did anything impeachment-worthy.

As for the questions you asked, I state again, you are (of course) free to look that up if you're inclined to.

That the two Democrats I've mentioned are not in leadership positions really doesn't matter. They are influential to voters in their districts and a part of the HoR in our country. I don't believe they fully understand that a judicial vote that took place today of 23-17 to now move on to the full HoR vote next week is quite telling (as always, IMO), as this isn't necessarily the landslide that so many Democrats have thought it would be.

These two congressional leaders have either misspoke, spoke up too much, or arrogantly do not realize how this makes the Democrats in the HoR come across to millions of votes in this country. THEY should not be dismissed because it's only two of them speaking publicly.

You don’t feel they’ve deflected at all? What have all the process complaints and complaints about Democrats not liking Trump, while failing to defend his conduct say? Just today, when asked whether it’s appropriate to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival Rep. Deb Lesko tried to claim that Trump didn’t. That’s a lie, likely because she knows it’s indefensible.

There’s nothing to look up, because there aren’t other examples of Presidents asking their personal lawyers to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid. Do you feel that’s an appropriate thing to do? Why?

You said “Congressional leaders”. It was a party line vote, and perfectly expected - did anyone expect a single Judiciary GOP member to vote yes? And what’s arrogant about stating a fact - Congress is allotted oversight power in the Constitution, and if the President is not removed and demonstrated an abuse of his power or office, he can be impeached again. Trump continues to insist his call was “perfect”, so there’s every risk of him doing something like it again, or of him having done something similar in the last three years coming to light.

Thank you for the reply.

You have your thoughts on this as do I.

[Francee89]

I'm sorry but I do not feel they've deflected at all. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

I'm pretty certain we will not see eye-to-eye on this impeachment inquiry/impeachment, Francee. I feel that the Republicans have been defensive of Trump because they don't see where he did anything impeachment-worthy.

As for the questions you asked, I state again, you are (of course) free to look that up if you're inclined to.

That the two Democrats I've mentioned are not in leadership positions really doesn't matter. They are influential to voters in their districts and a part of the HoR in our country. I don't believe they fully understand that a judicial vote that took place today of 23-17 to now move on to the full HoR vote next week is quite telling (as always, IMO), as this isn't necessarily the landslide that so many Democrats have thought it would be.

These two congressional leaders have either misspoke, spoke up too much, or arrogantly do not realize how this makes the Democrats in the HoR come across to millions of votes in this country. THEY should not be dismissed because it's only two of them speaking publicly.

You don’t feel they’ve deflected at all? What have all the process complaints and complaints about Democrats not liking Trump, while failing to defend his conduct say? Just today, when asked whether it’s appropriate to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival Rep. Deb Lesko tried to claim that Trump didn’t. That’s a lie, likely because she knows it’s indefensible.

There’s nothing to look up, because there aren’t other examples of Presidents asking their personal lawyers to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid. Do you feel that’s an appropriate thing to do? Why?

You said “Congressional leaders”. It was a party line vote, and perfectly expected - did anyone expect a single Judiciary GOP member to vote yes? And what’s arrogant about stating a fact - Congress is allotted oversight power in the Constitution, and if the President is not removed and demonstrated an abuse of his power or office, he can be impeached again. Trump continues to insist his call was “perfect”, so there’s every risk of him doing something like it again, or of him having done something similar in the last three years coming to light.

Thank you for the reply.

You have your thoughts on this as do I.

No thoughts on whether it’s appropriate for Presidents ask their personal lawyers (who have admitted to working in the interests of their client, not the country) to work with foreign countries to investigate political rivals while simultaneously holding up foreign aid?