woodguru

Deciding what is okay for a president to do needs to be applied exactly the same way for one side that it is for the other, and applying it applies to the current one, not the past one and not the future one.

Trump is under the gun for things he has and is doing now. For instance taking a blanket approach to refusing to provide any documents or testimonies from administration people because they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the house at all. Does this apply to this one, or will it apply to the next democrat president too?

The right, in a situation where a democratic president refused to cooperate with a GOP subpoena would roll out the articles of impeachment for that thing alone. The response to it being pointed out that they allowed it when Trump did it would be to say..."but democrats went after trump for it so they can't do it".

The right uses "logic" that hurts your head to try to follow it. The defense for trump now is that dems did it or other things too, so we aren't going to hold him accountable. Then,you reverse it, put a democrat in the white house, and they won't be able to do the same thing Trump did because dems went after him for it, so they cant do it.

Accountability is about the one doing things now, the past one is irrelevant, and the future one will be handled the same way. Think about how you would see the same thing if a dem did it.

Liberty Tree

T***slation is Democrats want to forget the rules and standards of the past and go by a set of rules and standards that suit them now. The promise is that the new standards they want now will be applied in the future. Of course, we know they cannot be trusted so in a future incident they will say forget the past standards again and let us make new standards that suit us now. it is the same way they treat the constitution. They want it interpreted in a way that suits their current goal.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

I Agree!! 100%.. I think in all their haste and H**e, they didn't think of the repercussions their abuse of power will get them later IF the case happened that a democrat president needs to be impeached again!! (Of course that's assuming a democrat is ever elected again at least in my lifetime)... I think this is much ado about nothing, this whole ordeal and tax dollars being spent on what EVERY American president has done regarding foreign policy.. on the question of the phone call July 25th.. there was No quid pro quo!!... even if there Was it's NOT Illegal!! Damn sure isn't impeachable!!... This is such a waste of time and tax payer dollars!!.. Schiff being a fact witness and him being able to veto witnesses, questions from the Republican side...Oddly though, seeing the Repubs "wish list" of witnesses, I thought there would be more witnesses being asked for... Especially the whistle blower... the "whistle blower protection act" does Not guarantee anonymity it guarantees no repercussions or retaliation...

Lonewolf

It was black mail

woodguru

The GOP has been making new rules for some time now, and you will not acknowledge it...what about refusing to allow Obama to seat a supreme court justice, and he picked one that leaned conservative and it didn't matter... so that happened, McConnell decided he was not going to allow the SCOTUS pick within a year of the e******n.

Okay, precedent set, Ginsberg dies next year in February, does the same precedent apply? Wait for the e******n and let the people decide? McConnell has already said he would fill the seat. So do you have the ability to apply any sense of fairness or e******y here?

Dems have not come close to making up their own rules to the degree the GOP and trump have been doing. When does a president get to decide whether they will honor the house's right to investigate abuses of power?

woodguru

You decided already that there is nothing here and don't have a clue about the case as it has progressed, your defenses are as empty as your head in terms of knowing what the administration did that was wrong. The president did not have a right to oppose congress, the state department, and pentagon in withholding military aid in defense of our ally in fighting off their enemy, Russia. Our ally's enemy is our enemy by proxy. The president operated outside of open channels in multiple ways...you better start paying attention to the case.

woodguru

Extortion, blatant strong arming... withholding military aid that would have been used against Russia was treason...it was against our national security interests. He would have had no way to know what those interests are because he refuses to take the time to hear our intelligence services, he talked to Putin and he didn't want the US giving the Ukraine weapons that would be used against his tanks.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

I'll make your wh**ever simple for everyone. Pigs lying their asses off in the mud, does trump follow them? Any sane one would know the answer. Or as an equation 0x4=0 he's not playing.