Simplifying the impeachment debate....

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize just for not being George Bush . Trump gets endless investigations because he's not Barack Obama .

Yes, I’m sure Trump would never lie under oath. He should take the stand. It’s that simple.

worst straw man argument iv ever heard and i hate the hillaries

As opposed to trump who lied to everybody?

And Obama never lied about anything right? Kennedy? Carter? Hillary when discussing her email servers? Trump is such a liar compared to those folks ehh? Sorry, lying in court is held to a different standard. Trump can lie all day to Pelosi, she lies to him. But when you walk into court, it gets real.

So, you want Trump to take the stand, yes?

Why should he take the stand?

Why shouldn't he take the stand?

Since he is innocent till you can prove him guilty, what upside does he have by taking the stand?

The Democrats have no desire to find the truth, their whole agenda is to make the President look bad, facts be damned. This has been very obvious from the hearings we have already seen.

So why would he allow that to happen? He has everything to lose and nothing to gain. There is no upside and it is not required. He can not be legally compelled to testify.

Except, the facts presented are pretty damning as the Republican defense has been only to discredit the witnesses. Hardly a very good defense.

I'm not saying he is legally compelled to testify. Merely that he is incapable of lying in his testimony. Which, as a President, doesn't make me put much faith in him.

What "facts" did you find damning?

I have watched most of the hearings and everything I have heard has been hearsay, supposition, and opinion, not facts.

This person said that they heard that someone else thought that this other person said that the President may have meant this.

Many of the "witnesses" never even spoke to or met the President, none of the "witnesses" actually witnessed anything. None of them has testified that the President has ever told them he wanted anything from Ukraine. In fact, Sondland even testified that the President specifically told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine.

The only thing that came through is that some of these bureaucrats are upset that the President wasn't doing what they thought he should do. Even though the President is the one who sets policy.

The corroborating of evidence from the collective testimonies that our government engaged in an attempt to influence our national election through a foreign power.

That despite the fact policies toward Ukraine had not changed, aid had been withheld for a certain period of time until the House committees launched an investigation into the whistleblower's allegations.

That portion of Sondland's testimony came on September 9th, during a hasty phone with Trump after an investigation into the whistleblower's complaint had been announced. It hardly absolves the President to make a claim afterwards and, in fact, the rest of Sondland's testimony seems to conclude the exact opposite of the President's insistence that he wanted "nothing" from Ukraine.

What part of Sonland's testimony says the President wanted Quid Pro Quo.

This is Sondland's testimony.

Turner: “So, no one told you. Not just the president? Giuliani didn’t tell you. Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations? Is that correct?”

Sondland: “I think I already testified to that.”

Turner: “No answer the question: Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? Because if your answer is yes then the chairman’s wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations? Yes or no?”

Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner: “So, you really have no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?”

Sondland: “Other than my own presumption.”

Turner: “Which is nothing. I mean that is what I don’t understand. Do you know what hear-say evidence is, ambassador? Hear-say is when I testify what someone else told me. You know what made-up testimony is? Made-up testimony is when I just presume it."

By his own words, it was just his "Presumption". I am sorry, but a presumption is not a fact and as Rep. Turner said. "It means nothing".

And the fact remains that aid was withheld until investigation into Trump’s foreign conduct began.

Trump, nor anyone else in his administration, has to admit that what they were doing. In fact, nefarious as it would be, there would be a greater reason to keep certain people out of the loop.

And even greater reason for the White House to willfully disregard subpoenas to those with firsthand knowledge to testify.

Ran out of replies on our other thread so I replied to this one.

Just like Nancy Pelosi, you keep saying the evidence is clear, but she doesn't say what the evidence is. I don't see it. So far the only fact you have presented is that the funds were temporarily held up. I agree that it is a fact.

The reason for the holdup is being debated. The Dems claim it was for Quid Pro Quo, Repubs claim it was to establish that the new Ukraine President was not corrupt. I have not seen evidence supporting either claim.

There were no facts presented during the hearings, only hearsay, and supposition. So far I have seen no concrete evidence of an impeachable offense and I don't seem to be alone. The latest polls show that support for impeachment is gone. Over 92% of Repubs, 78% of Independents and over 30% of Dems are now against it. These numbers change depending on Poll, but all polls show support is down.

If you have other facts that do support impeachment, I would like to hear it. If a crime was committed, the guilty need to be prosecuted.

Tim Pool has a few good videos on this whole circus.

I appreciate your suggestion of Tim Pool. I believe I recognize to have heard that name. I'm afraid my hearing isn't very good, which honestly makes listening to Trump even more annoying with his tendency to flippantly switch between topics.

I also appreciate you staying on topic and refraining from ad hominems. At least in this conversation chain. It is still admirable. I won't pretend that you didn't have any good points, but I'm afraid I have no other facts to present that you have not heard before.