Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[TwitchySeal]

A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]"

Local Rules:
- No baiting, trolling or flaming.
- If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread.
- If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread.
- No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.
- Don't be an asshole.  
- No spam.

If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it.

If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0

[TwitchySeal]

They announced eight witnesses for next week over 5 hearings, I added them to OP ^^   Volker and Vindman seem likely to be the most interesting.

[PrimeNumber7]

Responding to this post.

Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid.  But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians.  They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally".  I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security.

I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.

One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials.

[squatz1]

Responding to this post.

Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid.  But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians.  They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally".  I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security.

I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.

One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that pretty much anyone and everyone on foreign policy doesn't like the way Trump goes about doing things, it most likely makes things hard for them as he isn't typical in the way that he negotiates, some news could be handeled on twitter, he holds a deep distrust for career burecrats who he feels are apart of the swamp, and he also feels the intelligence community was out to get him (which is true to a certain point, some did try to make him look bad)

So yeah -- I mean I'm not saying these people are lying, I'm just saying there is without a doubt a bias present as they most likely don't like this president.

Also: What threw ya over the edge Twitchy to move over to the Self mod ?

[TwitchySeal]

Responding to this post.

Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid.  But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians.  They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally".  I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security.

I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.

One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials.

I don't think the argument the Dems are making is simply "Trump withheld funding from Ukraine", although that's certainly what the Republicans are trying to make it seem.

Kent made it pretty clear that he considered it his duty to carry out whatever foreign policy the president decided, and if Trump decided he didn't want to send aid then that was fine.  

They both testified that the entire state department, maybe even including Pompeo - not sure what he knew, were told that the aid was coming, so they reassured Ukraine it was coming, and Ukraine believed them.  Then Trump got all sneaky and sends his personal lawyer to basically undermine the entire State department.  The whole thing made Ukraine appear vulnerable to Russia and made the US look like a country that has no problem fucking around with Allies while they are being invaded by Russia.

If he didn't want to send the aid to Ukraine, he shouldn't have proposed it to Congress.
If he wanted to investigate Ukraine before the aid was sent, he should've done it before the check was supposed to be in the mail.
If he wanted a favor from the President of Ukraine, he should've asked for it before the US agreed to send the money.
If he wants to do whatever he wants and answer to nobody, like he has for most of his life, he shouldn't run for President.

That's my simplified interpretation of the Dems narrative anyway.

[Spendulus]

Responding to this post.

Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid.  But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians.  They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally".  I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security.

I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine.

From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.

One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials.

I don't think the argument the Dems are making is simply "Trump withheld funding from Ukraine", although that's certainly what the Republicans are trying to make it seem.

Kent made it pretty clear that he considered it his duty to carry out whatever foreign policy the president decided, and if Trump decided he didn't want to send aid then that was fine.  

They both testified that the entire state department, maybe even including Pompeo - not sure what he knew, were told that the aid was coming, so they reassured Ukraine it was coming, and Ukraine believed them.  Then Trump got all sneaky and sends his personal lawyer to basically undermine the entire State department.  The whole thing made Ukraine appear vulnerable to Russia and made the US look like a country that has no problem fucking around with Allies while they are being invaded by Russia.

If he didn't want to send the aid to Ukraine, he shouldn't have proposed it to Congress.
If he wanted to investigate Ukraine before the aid was sent, he should've done it before the check was supposed to be in the mail.
If he wanted a favor from the President of Ukraine, he should've asked for it before the US agreed to send the money.
If he wants to do whatever he wants and answer to nobody, like he has for most of his life, he shouldn't run for President.

That's my simplified interpretation of the Dems narrative anyway.

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

[TwitchySeal]

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump.  Do you think that's the way it should be done?

I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate.  It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of.  Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way.

Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President?

Also: What threw ya over the edge Twitchy to move over to the Self mod ?

I was planning on doing it from the very beginning, and I thought I did.  Just realized last night I guess I forgot to check the box.

FHellfish suggested it

Honestly you have tools given to you to avoid anyone you don't want to interact with, feel free to make any topic you want a self modded thread, you are then perfectly free to have any kind of serious discussion you feel like dealing with.

I have absolutely no intention of censoring any opinion or anything, I prefer lots of different opinions.  But a thread like this seems like it would have pretty high chance of devolving into flame/troll wars and then the discussion is basically impossible.

[Spendulus]

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump.  Do you think that's the way it should be done?

I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate.  It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of.  Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way.

Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President?
....

LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past.

I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods.

[TwitchySeal]

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump.  Do you think that's the way it should be done?

I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate.  It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of.  Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way.

Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President?
....

LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past.

I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods.

And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president.

Not trying to be confrontational.  But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous.  The president is not a King.  He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government.

[Spendulus]

Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.

Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump.  Do you think that's the way it should be done?

I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate.  It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of.  Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way.

Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President?
....

LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past.

I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods.

And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president.

Not trying to be confrontational.  But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous.  The president is not a King.  He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

[TwitchySeal]

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

[dupeddonk]

Got a chance to watch some today.  Really embarrassing performance by the Republicans who keep arguing things that dont need to be argued.  Like the president has the right to fire the ambassador lady for whatever reason.  Everybody knows this and she done said so herself a whole bunch of times.  Why keep harping on the fact he shouldnt be fired because hes allowed to fire ambassador?

And now Trump is on TV saying its violation of his first amendment rights because he isnt defending himself at the Trial?  Has  he even read the constitution?  Not to mention he would be allowed in a blink of a eye to go under oath and take questions.

[Spendulus]

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

[dupeddonk]

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached. 

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Shouldnt be about either party really. 

I'm a life long consevative, happily voted Republican every election since Raegans second term including Trump.  Dad was a Marine, I'm a Marine, son is a Marine and daughter is about to join the Navy.

Trump is not a conservative.  Hes a god damn disgrace that thinks he can run the country the way he ran his real estate buisness his whole life, whithout having to answer to anyone and just hiring people help you get away with illegal things.  Thats not why I voted for him and I know for a fact im not alone.

Its obvious what the democrats are trying to impeach him for, there is no scraping around as you say required.

He held up foreign aid to try and get it to look like Ukraine opened investigation into Biden all on their own.  He knew it was wrong, so he sent his buddy over to do it for him and keep it off the record.

The worst saddest part about this whole thing is all the actual Republicans who know what's happening is wrong and are keeping quiet because they know he will attack them and maybe just make up some lies about them if they speak out.  This is just wrong, its the behavior of an authoritarian, and should never be ok for an American President to do.  Its fking embarrassing.

[TwitchySeal]

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings.  I'd feel the same way if someone tried to bring up Stormy Daniels or his Bankrupt Casinos when trying to argue that Trump should be impeached.

Got a chance to watch some today.  Really embarrassing performance by the Republicans who keep arguing things that dont need to be argued.  Like the president has the right to fire the ambassador lady for whatever reason.  Everybody knows this and she done said so herself a whole bunch of times.  Why keep harping on the fact he shouldnt be fired because hes allowed to fire ambassador?

I agree, the Republicans seem to be trying to make it look like the Democrats are arguing things that they're not.  

Democrats: The President had every right to fire the ambassador.
Ambassador:  I served at the pleasure of the president, he had the right to fire me at any time.
Republicans: They're trying to impeach the president for firing the Ambassador, he's allowed to do that!!!

(yes I'm paraphrasing here)

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.

Little ironic today, while Trump was attacking the witness on Twitter today, Roger Stone got convicted for witness tampering (and 6 other felonies).

[Spendulus]

...

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.....

I really don't care what she went through. I saw a part of it, and saw a bunch of bitching, moaning and complaining.

Didn't see any direct testimony relevant to the subject of the hearings.

[Spendulus]

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ...

"A valid defense"?

Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense.

Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for.

There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is.
I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things."


[/quote]

[dupeddonk]

...

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.....

I really don't care what she went through. I saw a part of it, and saw a bunch of bitching, moaning and complaining.

Didn't see any direct testimony relevant to the subject of the hearings.

The reason they had her there was to explain how Rudy went over there and started going behind everyones back and talking to Ukraine top dogs saying he was there on behalf of the president and leaking fake stories to Hannity about Yovanovitch.  This stuff is all part of the big picture of what happened leading up to Trump asking Ukraine to investigate biden and shows corrupt intent.  I bet Rudy gets kicked to the curb soon and maybe even ends up being roomies with the Lawyer Trump used before him. Notice he isnt on the news anymore or doing interviews?

Its crazy what has happened to Rudy.  Used to be one of the best prosecutors in the country and national hero and now look at him making a fool of himself spreading conspiracy theories.  I think it must be the desire for power.

[TwitchySeal]

One of Taylors aids got deposed today, the guy that told Taylor he overheard a phone call between Trump and Sonland at a restaurant in Ukraine. They talked about how Trump "doesn't give a shit about Ukraine", cares a lot about the Biden investigation, president of Ukraine "loves your ass" (Trumps), Sweden should've let A$AP Rocky out because Trump told them to but at least Kim Kardashian will be happy he tried...lol

Here's his opening statement

I feel like the guy is likely telling the truth, and there were 2 other people at the lunch that might be deposed also, but the whole "I over heard him on the phone thing" is just such an easy target for the GOP I suspect they will probably pass on grilling him publicly.

Sonland is one of the witnesses the Republicans requested and scheduled to testifies next week. He's already had to change his testimony from "there was no quid pro quo" to "oh, now I remember, there was some quid pro quo" after every other witness' testimony was in direct conflict with his.

On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.

It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ...

"A valid defense"?

Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense.

Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for.

There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is.
I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things."

Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  

[Spendulus]

...
Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  

Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt.