Oops, I did it again

now the rightwing pundits are trying to make the "quid pro quo" the focus,but that is secondary.

there is a constitutional mandate,but politically speaking...is just...yeesh...dumb to even pursue.

this may have just handed 2020 to trump.

What does Federalist 68 have to do with this? It's about the electoral college.

might have the article wrong.maybe it's 67?
anyways,it is alexander hamiltons argument for impeachment in regards to imposing/influencing foreign leaders into providing political favors.

so the simple act of asking is impeachable.

The favor he asked for was in regard to the Clinton email server, which is believed to be in Ukraine in possession of Crowdstrike.

in THE possession of....

that was in 2016.
and let me be upfront.
I am not interested in arguing the finer details of which party,or politician is more corrupt than the other.
all I am saying is that there is an actual constitutional basis for impeachment.
I am not of the opinion this is politically savvy,or smart,just that Pelosi has a case.

I'm talking about the contents of the Ukraine transcript that has liberals hair on fire. That thing that's all over the news right now. That thing Pelosi announced an "Impeachment Inquiry" for (which isn't a real thing). The transcript released yesterday, not in 2016 - yesterday.

Trump asked for a favor - yes, he asked for the Clinton email server which is believed to be in Ukraine.

Trump didn't threaten to take away any aid (no quid pro quo).

Every single thing the major media outlets is trying to spin is a complete misrepresentation of the information in the transcript backed up only by edited versions of the document.

If this makes it to the Senate - people will be PISSED to find out how badly they've been lied to.

"Trump asked for a favor - yes, he asked for the Clinton email server which is believed to be in Ukraine."

you are arguing with yourself here mate.

unsure what your goal is here.
if it is to play partisan parcheesi I am not interested.

"that was in 2016" - did you forget your own argument?

still not my argument.

now you are just being a sophist.

since this seems to be of such importance to you.
you are RIGHT..i brought up 2016 in regards to your crowdstrike point.
what year was that exposed?

we are done here.
I gave you a shot,and you whiffed.
I have no interest in discussing anything with a bad faith actor.

toodles mike.

Do you have some weird form of internet forum tourette syndrome? So bringing up 2016 had no point whatsoever, and you felt the need to say it for what reason? To confuse the argument and run away? Good job, I'd love to see you make a fool of yourself in an RONR debate.

that was YOUR claim,and I was not refuting this,i was simply stating that it was from 2016.

again,what are your goals here?

because MY actual premise has been based on the constitutionality of impeachment proceedings.you moving the goal posts to continue to ….
ok,i really have no idea what you are trying to do.
you are not countering my point of the constitutionality,and the points you have brought up have only confirmed my points.

you are literally arguing with yourself.

I am trying to be kind here,and generous as I possibly can,but I have already stated that if your goal is to play partisan parcheesi,i am not interested.

if you have no counterpoint to the constitutionality of impeachment proceedings.
we are done here.
and have a fantastic day!

I never brought up 2016, you did

whatever mike.
wasn't making a counterpoint to crowdstrike.
was pointing to the year.
you are exceptionally bad at this,and I find it deliciously ironic that you have sunken to projection and insults.

you have been exposed as a bad faith actor.
insult away..i care not your opinion nor your fake civility.
you are a sophist hack.
and facts don't care about your feelings.
and the fact is:there is a constitutional basis for impeachment.

but you keep swinging slugger.
and good luck in the future,because you lost this one.

The guy who first called me a sophist is offended by insults..... hypocrite much?

here,let me help you:
sophistry
[ˈsäfəstrē]

NOUN
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
synonyms:
trickery · deviousness · deceit · deception · dishonesty · cheating · duplicity · guile · cunning · artfulness · wiliness · craft · craftiness · evasion · slyness · chicanery · [more]
a fallacious argument.

Congratulations, you can use a dictionary. However, my arguments aren't false, which makes it name-calling.

Hamilton didn’t understand international politics, and our need as a new country to be recognized as legitimate. The world negotiates. Toddlers learn it before they even go to school. Hamilton would say no to sanctions, no to nuclear arms reduction, no to interacting with the world. It was not and never will be practical.

ok,let's say everything you just laid out is true,and we all agree.
it has nothing to do with articles of impeachment.

one great thing about our constitution is that we can change it to reflect the times.
and that may happen after we get to witness this circus.who knows.

So we amend the constitution to forbid asking a country’s official for anything.

we could if we wanted to,but didn't you just make an entirely different case?
or...
we could refine the terms to reflect modern times.
maybe we could amend the article that favors are fine,as long as they do not benefit politically or financially.

oh wait....nevermind.

And how does Trump benefit politically by receiving the server of a candidate he isn't running against? Other than doing his job and retrieving a server containing top secret information from Ukraine, how does it benefit Trump 2020?

Of course, you can't say - so you deflect. That's what I expected from you.

now go do your homework