Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction

[Crazyhole]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832


Interesting insight into Schiff and his motivations. So much for Parnas providing additional evidence that should be added to the record. This isn't totally unlike the time he claimed that Devin Nunes was in Ukraine and Nunes proved it was a lie, or like when harry Reid claimed that Romney hadn't paid his taxes in a decade. At some point these people need to be held accountable.

 

[Cubs79]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832


Interesting insight into Schiff and his motivations. So much for Parnas providing additional evidence that should be added to the record. This isn't totally unlike the time he claimed that Devin Nunes was in Ukraine and Nunes proved it was a lie, or like when harry Reid claimed that Romney hadn't paid his taxes in a decade. At some point these people need to be held accountable.

The apparent mischaracterization, however, does not undercut Democrats' argument that Trump withheld critical military aid to Ukraine as a way to pressure Zelenksy into opening up investigations into the Bidens, including Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who was once a board member on Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Last paragraph from your article.

 

[Crazyhole]

The apparent mischaracterization, however, does not undercut Democrats' argument that Trump withheld critical military aid to Ukraine as a way to pressure Zelenksy into opening up investigations into the Bidens, including Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who was once a board member on Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company.

Last paragraph from your article.

And yet it also supports the trump defense that he was asking Ukraine to root out corruption that could affect how USAID dollars are used. Zholoskevsky, in his interview said that they hired Biden basically because of his ability to bring influence.

 

[Cubs79]

And yet it also supports the trump defense that he was asking Ukraine to root out corruption that could affect how USAID dollars are used. Zholoskevsky, in his interview said that they hired Biden basically because of his ability to bring influence.

Then he should have asked for a proper investigation and gone about it in the proper manner.

 

[Crazyhole]

Then he should have asked for a proper investigation and gone about it in the proper manner.

So the US is tasked with investigation corruption in a foreign country?

 

[fried-chicken]

So the US is tasked with investigation corruption in a foreign country?

I know you're more determined to be right than to be correct but Trump didn't ask Ukraine to investigate corruption in Ukraine. He asked them to find out why Hunter Biden had a job making 600k per year as a board member. This implies nepotism and corruption within our government in regards to overseas politics. Lots of people were on that board that arguably shouldnt have been and they were never named by Trump.

He was only concerned about one person. Joe Biden. He also only started giving a shit when Joe ran for president.

I don't know why I'm constantly disappointed when I see the levels y'all will go to in order to defend Trump in the face of obvious abuse of power. I should be used to it by now but there's not anything Trump could do that would bring any of you to reality.

 

[Cubs79]

So the US is tasked with investigation corruption in a foreign country?

If you think a former VP did something wrong in a foreign country then yes, I think that is on us to investigate that. Especially when it our leaders, not the Ukrainian leaders, wanting the investigation in the first place. Are you suggesting we should outsource our investigations of our own political figures?

 

[NinjaKnight]

So we're pretty much on the same page. I share your concerns. I too am an ex-republican. And obviously nothing you or I say on the internet is ultimately going to matter much and we can't change discourse at the macro level.

But we are fighting an information war right. A war on truth. A large chunk of America essentially consumes their news right wing propaganda outfits. An old boss of mine (smart dude) recommended to me recently that I check OANN because it's the only true non-biased news source he can find(!).

I don't know how to fix it but I do know how to make it far worse - which is to throw your hands up in frustration and give up. Keep engaging and remind folks on the other side that reasonable people disagree with them.

Yeah I mean I agree but again I tried doing that for 2 years, patiently pointing out all the errors and how people are objectively wrong. All I got were insults and outrage in return.

How do you use logic and reason to change the mind of someone who doesn't base their worldview on logic and reason? If you can find a way to solve this philosophically impossible problem you'll find an answer to fix america. Sadly it's a catch 22.

 

[Crazyhole]

If you think a former VP did something wrong in a foreign country then yes, I think that is on us to investigate that. Especially when it our leaders, not the Ukrainian leaders, wanting the investigation in the first place. Are you suggesting we should outsource our investigations of our own political figures?

The first thing that trump asked Zelensky to investigate had nothing to do with Joe Biden, so that's a pretty good couch to start with. The 2nd thing he asked them to look into was "Biden", Burisma, and why the investigator was fired. There is no indication that trump was referring to Joe specifically although it's a pretty easy leap to make, but the fact that Hunter Biden was involved and Devon Archer was prosecuted for money laundering in the same deal makes it less than as clear as you want It to be. If trump hadn't asked for them to look into crowdstrike then it would probably be much easier to make the leap that it was political. Trump may be guilty of falling for conspiracy theories and nothing more. I'm just not willing to make the leap that you are and state as a matter of fact that what he did was to win re-election. He's the most self-edifying person on the planet so I'm pretty sure his hubris would have already led him to the conclusion that he is unbeatable so dirt on Joe Biden is unnecessary. Clearly he isn't big on evidence, he'll lie about anything. So why all of a sudden does he see a political opponent being worthy of finding "facts" against?

 

[Cubs79]

The first thing that trump asked Zelensky to investigate had nothing to do with Joe Biden, so that's a pretty good couch to start with. The 2nd thing he asked them to look into was "Biden", Burisma, and why the investigator was fired. There is no indication that trump was referring to Joe specifically although it's a pretty easy leap to make, but the fact that Hunter Biden was involved and Devon Archer was prosecuted for money laundering in the same deal makes it less than as clear as you want It to be. If trump hadn't asked for them to look into crowdstrike then it would probably be much easier to make the leap that it was political. Trump may be guilty of falling for conspiracy theories and nothing more. I'm just not willing to make the leap that you are and state as a matter of fact that what he did was to win re-election. He's the most self-edifying person on the planet so I'm pretty sure his hubris would have already led him to the conclusion that he is unbeatable so dirt on Joe Biden is unnecessary. Clearly he isn't big on evidence, he'll lie about anything. So why all of a sudden does he see a political opponent being worthy of finding "facts" against?

So you are ok with our government asking foreign governments to investigate our private citizens working for private companies? That's actually much worse IMO.

He specifically mentioned Biden, did he ever mention Archer? From my knowledge no, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If this was truly about corruption there are ways he could have gone about that. You can't seriously think he just happened to be asking a foreign government to investigate a potential opponents son, right about the time that potential opponent was leading in the polls. You honestly think it was just a coincidence?

 

[NinjaKnight]

So you are ok with our government asking foreign governments to investigate our private citizens working for private companies? That's actually much worse IMO.

He specifically mentioned Biden, did he ever mention Archer? From my knowledge no, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If this was truly about corruption there are ways he could have gone about that. You can't seriously think he just happened to be asking a foreign government to investigate a potential opponents son, right about the time that potential opponent was leading in the polls. You honestly think it was just a coincidence?

Hilarious watching you trying to use logic in your "debate" with someone who legitimately thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

Are you going to start a debate club with a pineapple next? Might be more interesting.

 

[Crazyhole]

So you are ok with our government asking foreign governments to investigate our private citizens working for private companies? That's actually much worse IMO.

He specifically mentioned Biden, did he ever mention Archer? From my knowledge no, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If this was truly about corruption there are ways he could have gone about that. You can't seriously think he just happened to be asking a foreign government to investigate a potential opponents son, right about the time that potential opponent was leading in the polls. You honestly think it was just a coincidence?

I guess this is where we diverge. I think it's totally ok to ask a foreign government that we are giving aid to, to look into whether a recipient of that aid is using it for the intended purpose. Having a US citizen on the board of directors shouldnt have any impact on that. Was it inappropriate to ask Zelensky to investigate crowdstrike? If anything, that's more questionable than the Burisma aspect because it was solely about politics and not about our aid dollars.

 

[Cubs79]

I guess this is where we diverge. I think it's totally ok to ask a foreign government that we are giving aid to, to look into whether a recipient of that aid is using it for the intended purpose. Having a US citizen on the board of directors shouldnt have any impact on that. Was it inappropriate to ask Zelensky to investigate crowdstrike? If anything, that's more questionable than the Burisma aspect because it was solely about politics and not about our aid dollars.

You avoided a great deal of that post. Did Trump ever mention Archer? Because that is a very telling point. If he didnt, it is because he wasnt concerned about corruption, he was concerned about his political opponent. That, is nothing more than wanting a foreign government to help aid him in the election.

I dont understand what you mean by using that aid for the intended purpose. We didnt send them aid to investigate Burisma, we sent them aid to assist them in an armed conflict with Russia. So, how does investigating Burisma fit into that at all?

 

[UCFWayne]

yawn. is the clown show over yet?

 

[NinjaKnight]

So we're pretty much on the same page. I share your concerns. I too am an ex-republican. And obviously nothing you or I say on the internet is ultimately going to matter much and we can't change discourse at the macro level.

But we are fighting an information war right. A war on truth. A large chunk of America essentially consumes their news right wing propaganda outfits. An old boss of mine (smart dude) recommended to me recently that I check OANN because it's the only true non-biased news source he can find(!).

I don't know how to fix it but I do know how to make it far worse - which is to throw your hands up in frustration and give up. Keep engaging and remind folks on the other side that reasonable people disagree with them.

yawn. is the clown show over yet?

Boosted, see what I'm talking about? How do you debate this level of willful ignorance? Do you waste your time trying to convince flat-earthers that the Earth is in fact round? Do you show peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals to pineapples trying to change their mind?

It's just not possible to change the minds of morons who don't care about facts and logic. So I just make fun of them

 

[Crazyhole]

You avoided a great deal of that post. Did Trump ever mention Archer? Because that is a very telling point. If he didnt, it is because he wasnt concerned about corruption, he was concerned about his political opponent. That, is nothing more than wanting a foreign government to help aid him in the election.

I dont understand what you mean by using that aid for the intended purpose. We didnt send them aid to investigate Burisma, we sent them aid to assist them in an armed conflict with Russia. So, how does investigating Burisma fit into that at all?

Ukraine has a history of our aid dollars ending up in the hands of oligarchs. Trump was giving them missiles so it's probably important for the new president to make sure they get to where they are supposed to be, and that means looking into who the players have been in the past.

 

[Boosted87]

And yet it also supports the trump defense that he was asking Ukraine to root out corruption that could affect how USAID dollars are used. Zholoskevsky, in his interview said that they hired Biden basically because of his ability to bring influence.

Schiff screwed up but this doesn't support Trump's defense at all. This is more evidence that the only "corruption" he cared about was corruption that he might be able to tie to the Bidens. If Parnas was pushing for interviews or investigations into corruption with no relation to a Trump enemy, that would be evidence of a more general push against corruption.

 

[Cubs79]

Ukraine has a history of our aid dollars ending up in the hands of oligarchs. Trump was giving them missiles so it's probably important for the new president to make sure they get to where they are supposed to be, and that means looking into who the players have been in the past.

To monitor the money is one thing, to investigate Burisma is quite another. This is a complete stretch on your part.

 

[Cubs79]

Schiff screwed up but this doesn't support Trump's defense at all. This is more evidence that the only "corruption" he cared about was corruption that he might be able to tie to the Bidens. If Parnas was pushing for interviews or investigations into corruption with no relation to a Trump enemy, that would be evidence of a more general push against corruption.

Exactly. I just don't understand this narrative crazy is pushing that investigating the Biden's was nothing but a coincidence, when there is little to no reason to believe Trump actually cares about corruption, anywhere.

 

[Boosted87]

Boosted, see what I'm talking about? How do you debate this level of willful ignorance? Do you waste your time trying to convince flat-earthers that the Earth is in fact round? Do you show peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals to pineapples trying to change their mind?

It's just not possible to change the minds of morons who don't care about facts and logic. So I just make fun of them

I'll quote Bill Clinton here (or maybe just a Phil Hartman impersonation of Bill Clinton) - I feel your pain. I do.

Here's my philosophy. Don't feed the trolls. When it's clear someone is only trolling ignore them. If they actually ask a question, answer them. If their reply is a troll, ignore it. Think about it from your perspective. You're jaded and convinced these are unpersuadable people so there's no point. Realize that they feel exactly the same about you. It doesn't matter who's right. Don't make your goal to win the argument. Make your goal to try and understand the position of the other person. Trust is a two way street. This is how you build credibility. The facts are already on your side.

And think of it like this. Maybe the troll in question truly is unreasonable. But do you want your opinion to have credibility with the 5 or 10 lurkers who also read your post? Do you want them to assume you and the troll are both unreasonable partisan hacks?

There's a long road ahead to fixing the disinformation and partisanship problem we have in this country and it's probably going to get worse. The single biggest thing I can do personally is not become part of the problem.

 

[Crazyhole]

To monitor the money is one thing, to investigate Burisma is quite another. This is a complete stretch on your part.

The owner of Burisma was under investigation for this very thing. Guess who owned the bank that Bidens billion dollars of aid was deposited into. Same guy. Why do you think he was on a travel ban to the US until Burisma officials met with the state dept., just weeks before Shokin was fired?

 

[Cubs79]

The owner of Burisma was under investigation for this very thing. Guess who owned the bank that Bidens billion dollars of aid was deposited into. Same guy. Why do you think he was on a travel ban to the US until Burisma officials met with the state dept., just weeks before Shokin was fired?

So out of all the corruption in the world, all the corrupt companies we do business with, all the corrupt government we do business with, give aid to etc, you are telling me you think it is nothing but a coincidence that the 1 company Trump was interested in just happens to be a place where his potential opponents son had connections? You honestly think that was a coincidence how that worked out? Out of all the corruption in the world Trump that ignores (and hell, is even friendly with often), the 1 place that happened to catch his eye was a place where Hunter Biden happened to be connected? You can tell me with a straight face you believe that?

 

[Crazyhole]

So out of all the corruption in the world, all the corrupt companies we do business with, all the corrupt government we do business with, give aid to etc, you are telling me you think it is nothing but a coincidence that the 1 company Trump was interested in just happens to be a place where his potential opponents son had connections? You honestly think that was a coincidence how that worked out? Out of all the corruption in the world Trump that ignores (and hell, is even friendly with often), the 1 place that happened to catch his eye was a place where Hunter Biden happened to be connected? You can tell me with a straight face you believe that?

Hey, if Biden has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, let him testify. That will help paint a clearer picture of trump's motivations. The senate dems are so adamant that he not be called as a witness but if you're right he could prove without a doubt that this was all about politics.

 

[Boosted87]

Ukraine has a history of our aid dollars ending up in the hands of oligarchs. Trump was giving them missiles so it's probably important for the new president to make sure they get to where they are supposed to be, and that means looking into who the players have been in the past.

Let's go ahead and give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. Biden is corrupt and Trump has seen enough evidence to justify an investigation. That comes nowhere close to justifying a decision to (1) hire a private legal team to push for investigations into (2) an American citizen who just happens to be (3) a major political rival by (4) a foreign government known for prosecutorial corruption, conditioning (5) official acts of state on the public announcement of those investigations.

With the best possible case here for Trump, it's still one of the single worst political decisions ever. Bolton calling Rudy a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up was spot on. There is simply no way the the above scenario (even if Biden is guilty) doesn't blow up into a massive political scandal when exposed.

Trump's defense team is talking alot about due process and rights of the accused. Yet here we have POTUS bypassing the US Justice System altogether to aim the cross hairs of a known corrupt prosecutorial system directly at US Citizens. That's why this is so bad. If he gets Bill Barr to target Biden, at least Biden has his constitutional rights within our system and Barr has to answer to congressional oversight.

Doing it this way reeks of corrupt intent. Zero congressional oversight of any Ukraine launched investigation. Zero constitutional rights for the accused US citizen. Massive power disparity to try and strong arm the investigation to get the results you want.

 

[Boosted87]

Hey, if Biden has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, let him testify. That will help paint a clearer picture of trump's motivations. The senate dems are so adamant that he not be called as a witness but if you're right he could prove without a doubt that this was all about politics.

I wish the Senate Rules would grant the Chief Justice the authority to make initial rulings on relevance of witnesses and documents. Democrats put forward an Amendment that would have done that, still leaving the Senate the authority to overrule Roberts with a majority vote. I have no problem with Biden testifying, but I think the country would benefit greatly if someone seemingly above the partisan fray could make those determinations.

 

[Crazyhole]

Let's go ahead and give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. Biden is corrupt and Trump has seen enough evidence to justify an investigation. That comes nowhere close to justifying a decision to (1) hire a private legal team to push for investigations into (2) an American citizen who just happens to be (3) a major political rival by (4) a foreign government known for prosecutorial corruption, conditioning (5) official acts of state on the public announcement of those investigations.

With the best possible case here for Trump, it's still one of the single worst political decisions ever. Bolton calling Rudy a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up was spot on. There is simply no way the the above scenario (even if Biden is guilty) doesn't blow up into a massive political scandal when exposed.

Trump's defense team is talking alot about due process and rights of the accused. Yet here we have POTUS bypassing the US Justice System altogether to aim the cross hairs of a known corrupt prosecutorial system directly at US Citizens. That's why this is so bad. If he gets Bill Barr to target Biden, at least Biden has his constitutional rights within our system and Barr has to answer to congressional oversight.

Doing it this way reeks of corrupt intent. Zero congressional oversight of any Ukraine launched investigation. Zero constitutional rights for the accused US citizen. Massive power disparity to try and strong arm the investigation to get the results you want.

How is what rudy or soloman were doing any different than what Matt Drudge, Woodward, or Bernstein were doing? Should Woodward have just told the justice dept to investigate Nixon and dropped it? No, in all cases the right thing to do is investigate it yourself and make a full case then go public with it along with giving the findings to the justice dept (which Rudy tried to do and they ignored it).

 

[Cubs79]

Hey, if Biden has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, let him testify. That will help paint a clearer picture of trump's motivations. The senate dems are so adamant that he not be called as a witness but if you're right he could prove without a doubt that this was all about politics.

They probably arent going to let anyone testify. How are you supposed to call a witness when the GOP appears to be going out of their way to make sure no witnesses are called?

 

[Cubs79]

How is what rudy or soloman were doing any different than what Matt Drudge, Woodward, or Bernstein were doing? Should Woodward have just told the justice dept to investigate Nixon and dropped it? No, in all cases the right thing to do is investigate it yourself and make a full case then go public with it along with giving the findings to the justice dept (which Rudy tried to do and they ignored it).

Seriously? Rudy isn't a journalist he was working on behalf of his client. How is that remotely anything like what Woodward and Bernstein were doing? It is basically the damn opposite.

 

[Boosted87]

How is what rudy or soloman were doing any different than what Matt Drudge, Woodward, or Bernstein were doing? Should Woodward have just told the justice dept to investigate Nixon and dropped it? No, in all cases the right thing to do is investigate it yourself and make a full case then go public with it along with giving the findings to the justice dept (which Rudy tried to do and they ignored it).

Rudy was Trump's personal attorney conditioning the public announcement in exchange for official government acts. How on earth do any of your comparisons hold relevance against that?

Are you saying that if Trump's own DOJ ignores Rudy's findings, that somehow justifies Trump's actions?

 

[Crazyhole]

They probably arent going to let anyone testify. How are you supposed to call a witness when the GOP appears to be going out of their way to make sure no witnesses are called?

They kind of have a point. It's not the judge or juries responsibility to do the investigation, it's to hear what the prosecution has found. I'd rather they open the whole thing up but I can see the rationale behind their position. Both sides should be able to call whoever they want as witnesses but that ship sailed back in November.

 

[Cubs79]

They kind of have a point. It's not the judge or juries responsibility to do the investigation, it's to hear what the prosecution has found. I'd rather they open the whole thing up but I can see the rationale behind their position. Both sides should be able to call whoever they want as witnesses but that ship sailed back in November.

Huh? Trials have witnesses all of the time. They have absolutely no point. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[UCFWayne]

this is all pointless and a massive waste of time. the senate will not vote to remove trump. the dnc candidates all have problems. meanwhile trumps approval numbers slowly rise.

 

[Crazyhole]

Rudy was Trump's personal attorney conditioning the public announcement in exchange for official government acts. How on earth do any of your comparisons hold relevance against that?

Are you saying that if Trump's own DOJ ignores Rudy's findings, that somehow justifies Trump's actions?

Rudy was acting as an investigator. He never obtained a meeting with Zelensky in an attempt to make that deal, and the letter requesting a meeting was way before the phone call. The unredacted Parnas documents show that Rudy didnt continue to seek a meeting with him as well.

 

[Crazyhole]

Huh? Trials have witnesses all of the time. They have absolutely no point. What in the world are you talking about?

The point is that it was the houses responsibility to investigate, not the Senate's. Recall the house witnesses for clarification? Sure. Further the investigation? Maybe not.

 

[Cubs79]

The point is that it was the houses responsibility to investigate, not the Senate's. Recall the house witnesses for clarification? Sure. Further the investigation? Maybe not.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing you have ever typed on this forum. You have no idea how trials and our legal systems works clearly, but have a good one man, this is a pointless conversation if you are going to pretend you don't even have the most basic understanding how trials and calling witnesses works.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is probably the most ridiculous thing you have ever typed on this forum. You have no idea how trials and our legal systems works clearly, but have a good one man, this is a pointless conversation if you are going to pretend you don't even have the most basic understanding how trials and calling witnesses works.

Do judges or juries call witnesses?

 

[Boosted87]

The point is that it was the houses responsibility to investigate, not the Senate's. Recall the house witnesses for clarification? Sure. Further the investigation? Maybe not.

Schiff put some slides up on day 1. If I remember, the average number of witnesses in Senate Impeachment trials was ~33. Andrew Johnson's trial had something like 40. The highest was something like 60. The lowest was Clinton with 3.

In every trial (except Clinton), a huge chunk of those witnesses we're completely new. The Clinton trial was unique because there was a special counsel investigation that had already impaneled grand jury's and deposed all relevant witnesses, including POTUS. In that case, the question was whether or not to recall certain witnesses.

 

[Cubs79]

Do judges or juries call witnesses?

There have been 15 impeachments in our history, most of which have been judges. I believe I heard this will be the first one where no witnesses were called in front of the senate I guess the other impeachments did it wrong.

 

[Crazyhole]

Schiff put some slides up on day 1. If I remember, the average number of witnesses in Senate Impeachment trials was ~33. Andrew Johnson's trial had something like 40. The highest was something like 60. The lowest was Clinton with 3.

In every trial (except Clinton), a huge chunk of those witnesses we're completely new. The Clinton trial was unique because there was a special counsel investigation that had already impaneled grand jury's and deposed all relevant witnesses, including POTUS. In that case, the question was whether or not to recall certain witnesses.

Again, I want a ton of witnesses. We need to find out motive. Since biden was supposedly the basis for trumps request, he needs to testify. Rudy needs to testify. This is about corruption and if the senate has the ability to expose it, go for it. All of the documents that Rudy has need to be admitted into evidence. Schiff needs to testify on whether he had contact with the whistle blower. I say we go down the rabbit hole and find anything and everything we can to determine who the bad actors are. Hell, call shokin and lutsenko as both have made public comments about the whole deal. If ukraine is the ally they claim to be, they should want to help us root out corruption so get a statement from Zelensky at the very least. I say that literally anything and everything involving Ukraine should be on the table. Subpoena Chalupa, Mulvaney, and Bolton.

If trump is smart he will insist on it. His biggest enemy is going to be the suggestion that he is part of the swamp.

 

[fried-chicken]

This is all political. The republicans have already decided that they can't allow the facts to get out by calling witnesses. They are just working out how to justify it.

They are spending too much time on it though, I don't know if they realize that their base literally doesn't give a shit at all.

McConnell could just say, "we don't feel like it, that's our decision." And the chuds would find a way to be ok with it.

They will find a way to justify each and every action the GOP members make as they have done since they realized they couldn't stop trumps nomination and embraced his values and ethics into the party.

MAGA chuds know they would never let Obama or any dem get away with any of this. Anyone who cared about maintaining their own personal values more than a political win has long since left the republican party. What you have left are people who have purposefully looked the other way at every action they would have been furious about past leaders doing. The people left here will never turn their back on Trump because they are too committed. They have defended the indefensible for so long that the only option they have left is to forge on, one scandal after another, desperately waiting for Fox News to give them a way to wiggle out of any accountability for supporting an obvious scumbag. Most of them already acknowledge Trump is a scumbag. They are fine with having a scumbag president because he's fighting for their team. These are people who, once Trump leaves office will try to reclaim the moral high ground but the morality of the office will be dead.

The decision that this Senate makes will set the tone for accountability forever. Right now you shouldn't be asking yourself if you want Trump to remain in office. You should be asking yourself if you would be OK with a Democrat withholding funds from countries in exchange for attacks on Republican opponents. Do the political parties involved really matter? This sets precedent forever.

Is the short term gain of keeping a corrupt president worth the degradation of the office of President and the sovereignty of our elections? Pence will give you tax cuts just like Trump did. Pence will fight for pro life causes just like Trump. Republicans lose very little and send a message to all future presidents that there is a level of accountability that still exists.

Y'all know he ****ed up but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Reclaim your personal values. You can still be a conservative and a knowledge that Trump is setting awful precedent that can't be tolerated.