This entire Impeach Trump drama is nothing more than Dems vs Republicans

[lrrps21]

[BoyGenius]

This entire process has been a scam. Dems now plan to only allow themselves and their staff to know the whistleblowerâ€s identity, while concealing it from Republican committee members. This is unprecedented. What are they trying to hide??#KangarooCourt https://t.co/AmIvachqKN — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) October 7, 2019

Republicans didn't see this coming? Did they not read the rules for 116th Congress? The Democrats' strategy to impeach Trump is laid out, in detail.

[jmesser1982]

Yet Dems are supposed to be anti fossil fuel.

[lrrps21]

Yet Dems are supposed to be anti fossil fuel.

You caught that, too!

[BoyGenius]

Per The Hill...

Democrats are going to great lengths to hide the whistleblowerâ€s identity... considering holding testimony outside the Capitol for a staff-only session that would bar lawmakers from questioning the whistleblower.

Democrats are also weighing options to distort the whistleblowerâ€s appearance and voice, including through a video camera or audio-only testimony or by placing the person behind a screen.

[BWT30]

Certainly the American people are smarter than that and see right through all of this but I guess it depends on how the media spins it.

[lrrps21]

Per The Hill...

Democrats are going to great lengths to hide the whistleblowerâ€s identity... considering holding testimony outside the Capitol for a staff-only session that would bar lawmakers from questioning the whistleblower.

Democrats are also weighing options to distort the whistleblowerâ€s appearance and voice, including through a video camera or audio-only testimony or by placing the person behind a screen.

Dude explains the WB protections.

[ScarletHayes]

It's rather interesting to review the programs Obama's said he was for as compared with the programs being advanced by most current Democratic candidates.

As I've noted before, Obama would be a decided "moderate" in this race (this presumes he didn't veer left also, which would be likely).

Obama wanted modestly higher taxes, Obamacare of course, some infrastructure stuff, slightly reduced defense spending.

Obama's "moderate" legislative proposals were based on what he thought he could pass.  His true beliefs based on his Marxist, black nationalist ideology were more reflected in how he ran the government as the chief executive.  Obama laid the ground work for the radical ideas you now see in the Democratic Party.  He is no moderate.

Not really sure about the “black nationalist” stuff, but otherwise this is spot on.  This show trial ***** is straight out of Marxism and Chicago politics.  This is Obamaâ€s legacy on full display.

[Hightop77]

It's rather interesting to review the programs Obama's said he was for as compared with the programs being advanced by most current Democratic candidates.

As I've noted before, Obama would be a decided "moderate" in this race (this presumes he didn't veer left also, which would be likely).

Obama wanted modestly higher taxes, Obamacare of course, some infrastructure stuff, slightly reduced defense spending.

Obama's "moderate" legislative proposals were based on what he thought he could pass.  His true beliefs based on his Marxist, black nationalist ideology were more reflected in how he ran the government as the chief executive.  Obama laid the ground work for the radical ideas you now see in the Democratic Party.  He is no moderate.

Not really sure about the “black nationalist” stuff, but otherwise this is spot on.  This show trial ***** is straight out of Marxism and Chicago politics.  This is Obamaâ€s legacy on full display.

His church of 20 years was Afrocentric and of black nationalism.  That is who he is.  That is why he always sided with black thugs 100% of the time.

[cincydawg]

Obama has stayed largely out of the news since he left office.

[ScarletHayes]

Obama has stayed largely out of the news since he left office.

Yes heâ€s stayed out of the news, but if you think the guy is merely bird watching and building wooden ships inside glass bottles...  

For the sake of argument say heâ€s totally out of the game.  His legacy is clearly still alive and well.

[cincydawg]

My view of impeachment in a general sense is that it should be used in egregious clear cut situations where a President is clearly corrupt or treasonous, not for something where he used poor judgment or where he might plausibly have been seeking some political advantage.  It should be so clear that even his partisans peel away in numbers and his political support from his own party weakens significantly, meaning by half, at least, if not more.

There is no real point to impeachment, beyond use as a political tool, if the Senate is not going to convict.  It should be a crime so clear and so egregious that it it clear the Senate WILL convict, or that it is near certain.

It should be a last resort, not a continuation of politics by other means.  Just my opinion.

[Hightop77]

My view of impeachment in a general sense is that it should be used in egregious clear cut situations where a President is clearly corrupt or treasonous, not for something where he used poor judgment or where he might plausibly have been seeking some political advantage.  It should be so clear that even his partisans peel away in numbers and his political support from his own party weakens significantly, meaning by half, at least, if not more.

There is no crime at any level that would cause Democrats to support impeachment of a fellow Democrat in today's environment.

[JamesWright]

Selling our allies to the Russians for political favors is about as bad as it gets. It's exactly what the people who came up with impeachment were thinking about. The original purpose was to prevent a president from doing asbolutely anything, no matter how sleazy or corrupt, to win reelection. This is exactly what the framers of our constitution meant by impeachable conduct.

However, I will give you this: the current environment makes it impossible for partisans to step back, and they need to. Not to slow things down, but to step back and gather together to create a fast but fair process, and one that both sides could trust. I think they could do that if they wanted to. Pelosi should start by asking her Republican colleagues IN PRIVATE what it would take for them to freely and fairly judge this matter, quickly but carefully. If they said "Begin by holding a vote on whether to launch the impeachment inquiry process," then she should do that, etc.

Right now Republicans will do anything they can to stonewall and Democrats will do anything they can to push forward to the impeachment vote. That isn't a good situation.

Yes, Trump needs to go, and yes his conduct was impeachable, but without a process that is at least somewhat bipartisan, this will only be a way to stain Trump with impeachment.

[zigbee]

So, James, it's OK for the Intelligence Committee to STONEWALL the republicans by not allowing cross examination of this so called whistleblower?  It's ok for the dems to have inquiry on impeachment concerns WithOUt republicans as part of this process?  The people who voted in the republicans across the nation to the house should have their voices SHUT DOWN?

This entire farce is nothing more than what I posted in my OP on this topic, a continuation since 2016 to try and overthrow Trump and control the court and not keep him from winning in 2020.  There is no rule of law by the dems, they don't support it.  Shifty Schiff committed himself to making up things before the house in reading what he said was Trump conversation to the Ukraine president.  The dems are committed to ignoring corruption by the Bidens in the Ukraine and China.  The dems having nothing here to go on but lies, lies and lies.  If they wanted transparency WHY ARE THEY HIDING the first and second whistleblower?  WHY?

Concerning the latest effort by the dem its wing of the party to condemn the state dept to refuse to allow the US ambassador to the UN to testify before the intelligence committee, Gordon Sondland, I happen to agree 100% with Trump:

 President Trump said on Twitter that he “would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republicanâ€s [sic] rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public to see.”