DC Tom

Let me guess: "I'm not partisan, I support progressives AND socialists!"

But logically, then, I'm also responsible for the coup, since Schiff and I both have Bank of America accounts. Which is nice, since I've always wanted power.

More to your point, Schiff had <$15,000 invested with them, which is not "connected to" anything except by the most tenuous stretch of the imagination. I have stronger connections to the mob.

Actually, you are. The entire premise of the "quid pro quo" being a criminal act is that Trump was asking for an investigation in to a political rival. Except THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS A POLITICAL REQUEST AND NOT A NORMAL FOREIGN POLICY REQUEST. The only - only - evidence that this was for political gain is "Because Biden is the biggest threat to his reelection." Period. Or, to put it another way, you can't argue that Biden is open to investigation and simultaneously argue that an otherwise legitimate course of investigation is illegal because Biden is a presidential candidate. You literally misunderstood the specific criminal code you posted. Trump never asked for a campaign donation.

No, you can't accept donations from foreign sources. You can purchase services...say, purchasing a salacious dossier from British private investigation service on your political opponent.

No, you're being purposefully vague and inconsistent, because you can't even define the crime that occurred without making a circular argument to an a priori assumption that a crime occurred.

Or if you make the a priori assumption that Trump used foreign policy for his campaign benefit. Which does nothing more than build an impeachment case on the worst example of the "begging the question" fallacy in the history of philosophy. It's 9/11 conspiracy theories writ large: if you assume malfeasance, and interpret every shred of evidence as support of that assumption, you prove your assumption.

He solicitred? I thought this was a quid pro quo. Or extortion. Or bribery. Now it's solicitation? We're back to extortion again? What happened to quid pro quo? Or let me put this more simply: it's not a campaign finance violation to offer to pay for a service.

I've been waiting two months for someone to even define the crime. Again: make the distinction between foreign policy and campaign violation. Do it without making the claim that just because someone is running for office, they are immune from investigation. I'm not defending anyone. There hasn't yet been a coherent accusation made to defend anyone against.

You can't even decide if it was extortion, bribery, or a not-illegal "quid pro quo." The only thing you have decided is that it's not valid foreign policy...but you can't explain why. You can't explain how the law was broken, but you expect everyone to agree with you nonetheless. The "rule of law" crowd is laughing at you precisely BECAUSE they believe in the rule of law, and know you ain't it.

Let me guess. Because they'd perjure themselves by testifying Trump told them it wasn't a quid pro quo, when everyone knows it was a quid pro quo.

Well, at least this is new. Bribery/extortion/quid pro quo as a campaign finance violation.

Of all the NSC people on the call, and all the State Department officials involved in Ukraine policy, the EU ambassador was the only one with a direct line to the President? By all means, die on this hill. I'll get popcorn.

Worst. Extortion. EVER.

She's already been mayor of Baltimore, so any sentence amounts to "time served."

So we're supposed to judge the evidence of what people don't say, because if they said it, it would be evidence of a crime? Do you understand that this convoluted series of rationalizations designed to achieve a preconceived result is intellectually dishonest? Of course you don't...you're trying to justify a preconceived notion.

He openly testified HE THOUGHT there was one. That's not the same as there being one. And neither is relevant to the fact that IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY.

If Schiff were cloned, he'd be much better programmed, and able to appear human. Even as a first-generation clone...if they're this dysfunctional, they're recalled for reprogramming... Or...so I've heard...

You do understand that this is is, in no small part, why everyone here dislikes Schiff?

Somehow, everyone seems to believe that Trump wanted a quid pro quo, despite everyone testifying that Trump explicitly telling them he didn't want one. Basically, everyone is testifying that they all knew what Trump was thinking better than Trump himself knew what he was thinking. Which - in all seriousness - is the only believable evidence in this whole circus: everyone but Trump knew what Trump was thinking.

The House is going to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Trump for him using their government resources - their current impeachment proceedings - for political gain.

***** what? After three years of complaining about a half-assed trade war, now that we're close to striking a trade deal, they're passing legislation to sanction China? This is why the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump over foreign policy differences. Democrats are confused by a foreign policy as anything more than a series of ill-considered knee-jerk reactions.

Then it has to go through the Senate, too.

Does Joe Biden have a hidden stash of Smylex beauty products or something?

Oh, you'll be fine, outside the self-important Quebecois screaming "Told you so!" in French.