DC Tom

Jezebel actually ran a story that Trump died Saturday and was rushed to Walter Reed to be resuscitated. One, that's actually wackier than my cloning conspiracy theory. Two, Jezebel - née Deadspin, née Splinter, née Gawker - is the last site that should be spinning up resuscitation theories.

The great thing about this story is that if it were about Trump, it'd go nowhere, because he's just grin that *****-eating grin of his that says "Yep, I get laid a lot" and go on about his life. But since the Bidens care what the media thinks, this should have legs...

I don't think House resolutions need the president's signature, as they're non-binding statements. Regardless, I hope Trump uses it as an excuse to increases tariffs by way of sanctioning China. Just to troll the House.

No evidence, just seems like an obvious next step to manufacture some sort of "election interference" scandal with Netanyahu to impeach him and Trump over some presumed Palestinian-related crime.

Israel.

If it were going to "change world history," Durham and Horowitz would be dead by now.

I can't wait for Snopes to report that the Babylon Bee's report on CNN's "fake but believable" story is "mostly true, but false. Or something."

NOW they care. Not when it's a private email server in a bathroom. But now.

And she'll look good doing it. ?

Nine words, three lies. That's incredible.

No, you're actually looking at the reports of the testimony. If you were looking at the testimony, you see it wasn't nearly this unambiguous.

Foreign policy changed with the new head of state? The hell you say...

So in this case, now, is Trump guilty of extortion, bribery, quid pro quo, or just being orange?

And the fact that the VP publicly bragged about extorting the Ukrainian government to end it's investigation into corruption in that company. That'll be the real material benefit to Trump's campaign: when the 60+% or so of Americans who aren't raving progressive lunatics stop and ask "Wait...you're charging the current president with extortion for asking for an investigating the extortion of the previous VP?"

"But Trump should be held personally, criminally liable for other people's interpretations of his actions that he himself never ascribed!"

I'm not defending Trump. I'm asking you to justify yourself. You're presuming an investigation into corruption with regards to Burisma is a material benefit to his political campaign because of Biden's involvement with Burisma, which is predicated on an assumption that Biden will be Trump's opponent in the general election (which is the only way it could materially benefit his campaign). For the sake of argument: if Warren wins the nomination, is this no longer an impeachable offense, because the material benefit to Trump's campaign would cease to exist? And conversely...is the only argument against investigating corruption in the Burisma investigation Biden's involvement with Burisma and the previous investigation? And if it is, isn't this current impeachment an exercise to materially benefit Biden's campaign? By shielding him from investigation into his conflict of interest (which conflict of interest, I hasten to point out, was reported as a conflict of interest by everybody from 2015 until April of 2019)? Point being not that Trump is innocent, or Biden is guilty...but that you - and specifically "you," as in "halfwitted buffoons just like yourself" - only judge this on your preconceived notions of the parties involved. Which is why DR's earlier post was relevant - given multiple instances of similar actions, you only judge the right and wrong of them by your preconceived notions of the parties involved, not what actually happened. Then claim you're not trying to have it both ways. So shut the ***** up, moron.

Materially benefit. That's a key difference. Argue the material benefit of investigating someone who isn't even an opponent yet. Oh, yeah...people forget that little fact. The material benefit to Trump's campaign is predicated on an event that hasn't even happened yet.

Yes, it is. How isn't it?

No, but you can make the meeting a quid pro quo on someone doing something else that supports your foreign policy. And QUID PRO QUOS ARE NOT ILLEGAL. That's how foreign policy is done.

You can make it your foreign policy to not have high-level meetings with heads of states who refuse to investigate corruption, however.

That's called formulating foreign policy. Jesus Christ...Trump refused to meet with the Taliban unless they publicly ceased suicide bombings. Should we impeach him for extorting the Taliban, too? You people are ***** insane.

His interpretation is valuable; it also conflicts with direct statements he's testified to hearing. And when your "crime" is "conspiring to bribe someone with money that you're accused of withholding from them for extortion," people's interpretations of that "crime" are already on shaky ground when compared to direct evidence, for the simple reason that that convoluted bull#### isn't any sort of definition of a crime.

Thing is, I'd still sooner trust a guy who says "I came to this conclusion because..." than I would people who say "Well, that's the gossip I've heard!" As long as the first guy can explain the "because..."

And the AG. Don't forget, you have to get Barr out of office, too. So the President, VP, SecState, and AG were all part of the conspiracy. And Kavanaugh.

That sounds accurate.