If they care so much

"He blackmailed a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. Fact!" That statement is hardly impartial. This investivgation is ongoing, and so far the only "evidence" is the testimony of potentially politically biased witnesses. Whats-his-name is correct; "quid pro quo" happens daily in international politics. After all, what do you think a trade agreement is?

Our government clearly has no objection to what you term as blackmail. Biden "blackmailed" -- threatened to withhold aid -- Ukraine to have a prosecutor removed. No inquiry, until now.

From what I've seen there are none who could be described as "impartial" where Trump is concerned. It seems that all are either fanatically in favor or rabidly against. But that is a separate issue. A few token representatives do not qualify as an impartial trier of fact.

To establish a position, I believe Trump's actions are as politically motivated as those of the Democratic Congress investigating him and obstructing his administration, and just as impossible to prove. There are other grounds for claiming due process violations in this process, these are just two.

In the end, I think the Democrats are making a mistake that will only drag this out. Once they are ready to make it public there will be a rehashing of the whole thing, and it will drag out the process until long after the public has become bored with it all.

This meme was intended to be a snarky shot at the ACLU and their obvious political leanings. I will likely not be afforded the time to defend it, and probably shouldn't have submitted it.

Nicely responded!

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not that statement is impartial. I read the transcript, I’ve run it by many English professors and those with degrees deep inside a pretty red state and none of them, even two of the most fervent Trump Supporter has conceded to the QDQ.

Which means, without the investigation, Ukraine doesn’t get the weapons. Without the weapons, Ukraine is Putin’s next target. Ukraine has no choice but to say it was not QDQ, because Ukraine needs the weapons.

I think Trump purposely makes himself controversial because he thinks that if he makes everyone partial. Even if a group of people have tried to remain partial, he purposely paints them as impartial and biased to shield himself from the consequences of his actions.

“Well, of course they persecute me, they wanted Hillary to win.”

It’s so ingrained in Trump Supporters themselves that they think the people they talk to who criticize Trump, usually resort to antagonizing Hillary, Obama, Comey, Mueller, etc. Because they assume that someone will have a horse to back in this race like they back Trump. Even if the intention to provoke is an attempt to draw empathy; it’s still a failure to understand that representation doesn’t mean extension. Politics is not sports but it has become the new sports. And the intention of sports was suppose to quell human nature’s craving to give undying loyalty and support to a team and channel it in a nonviolent, or overall less consequential way.

To be clear did you mean *QPQ?

Also i'm gonna just hop in and say regardless of what someone might think about quid pro quo or the statements Mulvaney walked back almost immediately after saying them it seems to me there is a big difference between trade agreements and trying to use a foreign government to help you win an election. Idk maybe I'm deranged but normalizing this could be taking us down a dark path...

Got my PDQs and QPQs mixed up to make QDQ. Quid Done Quick? :)

Nice catch. And agreed.

Read the post again, you misunderstood it.

Dude, you're wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can have closed hearings.

Not the point.

The Constitution doesn't mention quid pro quo's either, even if they are explicit like Biden's.

The constitution says literally NOTHING about the inspector general, quit talking out of your ass. The office of inspector general didn't even exist at the time the constitution was written, nor did it for nearly another 200 years after ratification. There has been no amendment to the constitution relating to the IG since the role was created. Stop. Lying.

Thank you. I was just starting reread the Constititution because I could not recall any such statement or implication. Perhaps antithesis could provide Article and Section, if she stills believes this to be true.