Not sure who brought up the Clinton event, it was not me..

but to consider the basic cause, a blow job, as more dastardly then a attempt to strong arm aid from a foreign president is beyond even most right wing trolls.

trump has only escaped jail time because he used daddy's and Putin money to buy off charges..

conviction has been the defacto cause of spending millions of $$

plenty of merit to trump impeachment.. we would have even more but for the obstruction by the white house..

I guess you think all that cash was used to fight poverty in Iran? How ludicrous!!!!

No matter what ANY court you guys claim says we had to give them all that money in cash back, Obama should not have given it back. Period! You thinking he had no choice is pure stupidity, the new hallmark of the left!!! Obama making deals with terrorists and releasing hardened terrorists was also ludicrous!!! Get real boy, your boy Obama walked hand in hand with Iran. They made him their fool!!

People died because of Obama's actions. People are still dying because of his actions. Obama allowed more innocent people to die at the hands of terrorists and radial Islamist than any other person in history.

H**e Trump all you want, but he hasn't k**led innocents like his predecessors!

All you have on Trump are your lies and twisted "t***hs." You even lie about the things he says as if we can't hear it with our own ears! LOLOL!

I am glad y'all have impeached him, although in reality, y'all might not have! LOL! We win in 2020. Enjoy!

You said,

" do you feel it was irrelevant for Clinton?? "

" as more dastardly then a attempt to strong arm aid from a foreign president is beyond even most right wing trolls. "

I still contend that this is crap. Joe Biden is not Trump's opponent. No opponent, no CRIME. Joe Biden bragged about HIS CRIME. This would NEVER fly in a court room. I mean what if a murderer decided to run in the Democratic Primary ? Then Trump cannot ask a foreign country to go after them. This is nonsense.

" trump has only escaped jail time because he used daddy's and Putin money to buy off charges.. "
You have no proof.

" plenty of merit to trump impeachment.. we would have even more but for the obstruction by the white house. "

Trump is legally allowed to defend himself from fishing expeditions. If Pelosi and the rest of her gang of C****es had anything criminal they would have filed legal charges. The Impeachment was not a legal proceeding.

Ok, permi. That's it. I've had it with you. Now I'm gonna give you the scholarly explanation of why even the reasons that Trump was impeached for, were constitutionally invalid.

There is a valid constitutional argument that the Senate cannot hold this impeachment trial. The reason? The Articles of Impeachment drafted by Frodo Nadler and the House Judiciary Democrats are legally invalid.

Aside from being false, impeachment Article I against President Trump is an invalid legal argument. That’s the “abuse of power” article that claims that Trump used his office to solicit an investigation of the Bidens, by withholding foreign aid from Ukraine. We know this is false due to the transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukraine president. But it’s also a ludicrously invalid legal argument to claim that withholding aid from Ukraine is a crime.
Imagine that Congress approves a billion dollars in foreign aid to another country. Pick any country. The president signs the bill approving the aid. The aid is intended to build orphanages, pay for food and economic development programs, t*********r bathrooms or wh**ever. And then the leadership of that foreign country announces, “Woohoo! We get a billion dollars from those stupid sucker Americans! We’re spending it all on strippers and cocaine and throwing a party until the money runs out!”
Even though the money has been approved and signed into law and appropriated, we would have to be insane to still send that foreign aid to the corrupt foreign regime. It seems like some person – perhaps with a role similar to a “chief executive” – should still have discretionary authority to say, “You know what? Nope.”
The point is that it is legally absurd to claim that a president does not have discretion to withhold foreign aid under any circumstance. Article I in the Trump impeachment is therefore invalid.

Article II is even worse. It states that Trump is guilty of “obstruction of Congress” because he told Executive branch agencies and employees to refuse to comply with subpoenas related to the Ukraine phone call.
This is another one of those constitutional contrary-to-popular-belief scenarios, but a president is immune from criminal indictment. Impeachment is the sole constitutional remedy for removing a president if he actually commits a crime. Subpoenas from Congress are an area where there has always been a legal back-and-forth over whether a subpoena is legitimate.
This is because Congress is not the prosecutorial branch of government. It’s the legislative branch, so any subpoena that it issues has to have a valid legislative purpose. If Democrats had any smarts, they would have announced that, “Well, gosh, all of a sudden, we’re going to conduct some oversight into the disbursement of aid to Ukraine for no particular reason. Oh, look here! In the midst of all of this responsible oversight of foreign aid that we do all the time, we’ve discovered a potential crime by President Trump!” If they had done that originally, without mentioning impeachment, Article II would maybe have some validity to it.
Instead, from the moment that Americans found out that Trump even had a phone call with the Ukraine president, Democrats have been howling, “Hallelujah! It’s impeachment time!”
Because the Ukraine subpoenas had a prosecutorial bent from the get-go, and served no legislative purpose, the subpoenas were invalid. Not only that, Trump sought guidance from the courts in whether he was required to comply with the facially invalid subpoenas. Therefore, Article II is invalid for two reasons.

The constitutional question now becomes whether the Senate can even hold a trial based on the invalid nature of these shoddy, childish and poorly-thought-out Articles of Impeachment. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “No legislative act… contrary to the constitution, can be valid.” If the Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional to begin with, it doesn’t matter if the House passes them. Legally, the Senate can’t hold a trial on them.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is supposed to oversee an impeachment trial in the Senate if we get that far. The question is whether he will throw the case out entirely, based on the invalid nature of the impeachment articles. Well, we’re about to find out. And that’s the discussion that’s taking place in DC right now.

Nancy's already rueing the day she listened to AOC and the squad and started these stupid impeachment proceedings. She knows there's no way to extricate herself from the mess she's created without seriously damaging her party.

With so many choices, did we choose good reasons?

Really? He called Rosie fat? Holy Cow (pun intended). He MUST be impeached!

Did we pick on him to much??

When they start talking about his weight, make fun of how he looks, disparage his intelligence, talk about his moral failings, point out his crimes, say he's lazy - you mean?

He's called Rosie O'Donnell fat.

He's called Carly Fiorina ugly.

He's complained about Megyn Kelly by saying she was bleeding from her wh**ever.

He mocked a disabled reporter.

He constantly demeans the intelligence of people, even saying he knew more than his own generals.

He complained about Obama golfing and has outdone him in the number of outings.

He has attempted many times to profit from the Presidency. He has put people who work for the U.S. government in danger with his actions. He has openly worked with Russians against his own Intelligence agencies.

He threatens NATO and is a laughingstock on the world stage.

He bullies young women, pays off past dalliances, sometimes using money to be given to charities.

He has paid civil penalties on his charity and his university.

At what point CAN you go too far in criticizing someone like Trump?

Those who don't criticize him basically feel they personally benefit from Trump, so they ignore an rationalize their support, abrogating their own claims to morality.

Until I can personally v**e him out adding as many v**ers to the rolls as possible, criticism is about all I've got that helps me get through our long national nightmare.

With so many choices, did we choose good reasons?

Did we pick on him to much??

When they start talking about his weight, make fun of how he looks, disparage his intelligence, talk about his moral failings, point out his crimes, say he's lazy - you mean?

He's called Rosie O'Donnell fat.

He's called Carly Fiorina ugly.

He's complained about Megyn Kelly by saying she was bleeding from her wh**ever.

He mocked a disabled reporter.

He constantly demeans the intelligence of people, even saying he knew more than his own generals.

He complained about Obama golfing and has outdone him in the number of outings.

He has attempted many times to profit from the Presidency. He has put people who work for the U.S. government in danger with his actions. He has openly worked with Russians against his own Intelligence agencies.

He threatens NATO and is a laughingstock on the world stage.

He bullies young women, pays off past dalliances, sometimes using money to be given to charities.

He has paid civil penalties on his charity and his university.

At what point CAN you go too far in criticizing someone like Trump?

Those who don't criticize him basically feel they personally benefit from Trump, so they ignore and rationalize their support, abrogating their own claims to morality.

Until I can personally v**e him out adding as many v**ers to the rolls as possible, criticism is about all I've got that helps me get through our long national nightmare.

Great response! Absolutely great. I sometimes wonder if President Trump purposely removes his filter to distract the opposition and give them something to be focused, incensed and offended about while he continues to MAGA in plain view. I've heard many accounts that he's actually a kind and charming man out of the spotlight. No question that he possesses one of the ten oxymorns required to be elected our president, namely a soft hearted SOB. I wish I could remember even one of the other nine oxymorns.