and away we go !

[elcheapo]

As jackie gleson would say.

Well, nancy has made it offical.

For good or bad, right or wrong,

We are here now.  Let us just

Hope that people respect how

Serious this situation is, in

Washington, and the rest of

The country.

While im no big fan of trump,

This is a serious, and bad situation

For not only him, but also

The country.

If anything, maybe this may be

A lesson for him to clean up

his act...quit sending out crazy

Texts, watch what he says, and

Check his facts before he says

Or tweets..and quit attacking

Everyone....the above would

Go a long way to gain support.

[rsbs]

so you basically saying that the Trump impeachment is about style, rather than substance?

That's one of the few honest assessments I have heard from a leftist.

[r3020]

Sounds like you favor censorship. Here I thought you were concerned with justice. How do you defend the Constitution while at the same time call for censorship?

[sdholloway56]

Recent NBC/WSJ polls says 46% definitely won't vote for Trump, 34% definitely will, although I think there's a distinct Trump lean in the 18% undecided. It is sort of like Roy Moore- some people are embarrassed about who they're going to vote for.

I'll stick by my statement that 46% is his absolute ceiling.

But as far as the "gain him some support" thing, nowhere to go but the same 'ol playbook. Trash the opponent, hope to benefit from foreign and domestic propaganda and hope to divide off a few percent to third party candidates.

An exceptionally narrow path to re-election.

The bigger question is whether he can come close enough for R's to hold the Senate- a lot of corporate and foreign cash will pour in there.

[elcheapo]

We must hear the evidence, 

and determine if the evidence

presented, proves there was

Wrong doing, and if so...then

proced to remove from office,

and allow a smooth and uninterupted transfer of

Command.

This procedure was wisely set

Forth by our founding fathers.

[KNAPPer]

I don't think anything is going to happen. I heard Trump plans to use Executive Privilege to keep Bolton from testifying, and I'd be surprised if anyone present in the room during the Ukrainian phone call with Trump will be allowed to testify. The republicans will say that there has already been a trial so why do it again? Trump will come through just fine with no further questioning of any witnesses. Remember he has the Senate, Judiciary and his own Executive all working for him. How could he be found guilty of anything? As for changing his nasty habits - in the words of a southerner like myself, "Ain't gonna happen, 'nuff said."

[r3020]

How can any senator be objective in hearing the evidence when he/she is running against Trump for the presidency? How many of them have already said he is guilty? If there is damming evidence why didn't Adam Schiff read from that evidence instead of a made up transcript?

[r3020]

Why didn't Nancy have Bolton testify in the house?

[elcheapo]

I believe if the truth be known,

He is guilty of witholding funding

For personal gain...

Why....that is trump...that is the

Way he operates...he did it in

Business many times...and the

Honest truth, most of us do it

all the time...it is at times "just

business"....im not going to

Pay you untill the work is done

To my satification...

Trump, in this mindset...most likly

Did....but doing so had several

advisors making faces and hand

Jesters to him while on the phone

When it happened...chances are

He had not heard of or knew what

Quid pro quo even was or what 

It ment....untill an advisor or staffer advised him of it.

Chances are, if a poll was taken

Here, before the event...many

Would not know what it ment,

Untill they googled it.

I think that trump is not smart

Enough to be president....yes he

May have street smarts or business

Smarts, but in washington, there

are other kinds of ""smarts"".

A good working knowage of the

Law (the in's and out's) are very

Handy.

Also...you never have a win win

Situation...with a country as big

As this, and as diversified, someone, somewhere, is going

To get the short end of the stick

On the deal.

[r3020]

So you also know he is guilty before the first piece of evidence has been presented. If there was proof of his guilt why didn't Adam Schiff read from that evidence, why did he read a made up transcript?