Lev Parnas: Exclusive interview tonight at 9 - don't miss it Trumpsters.

[Mountain Man]

Not when it comes to the validity of an impeachment.

The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors". If there's no evidence that laws were broken, then there is no grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

[DivineOb]

The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors". If there's no evidence that laws were broken, then there is no grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

If I could give you examples of behavior which would break no laws but which would clearly be grounds for impeachment would it change your mind?

[Sam]

How bout just having a discussion and dispense with the theatrics, eh?



OK, that's dumb = because Trump could have simply replaced her.



How bout not over-analyzing, and just try talking like friends?

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, here. Because the texts clearly convey that Yovanovich was being surveilled by private contractors in Ukraine hired by Hyde, with an implied offer to go onto the "next step". You've said here that you don't care whether there's an investigation into the matter or hearing from the Secretary of State, following that up with the assertion that the President can get rid of an ambassador any time he desires and even "in a strange way".

If I misunderstood your implication, I'm trying to give you an opportunity to very clearly state why you do not believe this apparent clandestine surveillance and threat to a US ambassador demands a through investigation and official response to Congress.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, here. Because the texts clearly convey that Yovanovich was being surveilled by private contractors in Ukraine hired by Hyde, with an implied offer to go onto the "next step".

And what, exactly, is "the next step"?

You've said here that you don't care whether there's an investigation into the matter or hearing from the Secretary of State, following that up with the assertion that the President can get rid of an ambassador any time he desires and even "in a strange way".

Yes, I did.

If I misunderstood your implication, I'm trying to give you an opportunity to very clearly state why you do not believe this apparent clandestine surveillance and threat to a US ambassador demands a through investigation and official response to Congress.

--Sam

I think, Sam, as you so often do, you're examining my words with an eye toward doing battle. What was the "threat" to the US ambassador? You think they were gonna "take her out", and bury the body behind the Embassy?

[Cow Poke]

If I could give you examples of behavior which would break no laws but which would clearly be grounds for impeachment would it change your mind?

And in this incredibly divisive atmosphere, you think the result would be any different? Democrats FOR removal and Republicans AGAINST removal?

[DivineOb]

And in this incredibly divisive atmosphere, you think the result would be any different? Democrats FOR removal and Republicans AGAINST removal?

Hilly Hobbit's claim is

The threshold is "high crimes and misdemeanors". If there's no evidence that laws were broken, then there is no grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

I'm saying I can envision multiple behaviors a hypothetical president could engage in which would not be against the law but which surely warrant impeachment and removal. These aren't going to be things I accuse Trump of doing.

[Cow Poke]

I'm saying I can envision multiple behaviors a hypothetical president could engage in which would not be against the law but which surely warrant impeachment and removal. These aren't going to be things I accuse Trump of doing.

And my question remains -- in this incredibly divisive atmosphere, do you really think that would make a difference?

My response would be --- only if there was overwhelming support from the American people that a line (or lines) has (have) been crossed. We're just not seeing overwhelming support from the American people in this situation - which was one of Pelosi's own requirements.

[Sam]

And what, exactly, is "the next step"?



Yes, I did.



I think, Sam, as you so often do, you're examining my words with an eye toward doing battle. What was the "threat" to the US ambassador? You think they were gonna "take her out", and bury the body behind the Embassy?

Why do we have to specify what exact implied threat Hyde and Parnas were talking about? Is an implied threat by Hyde and Parnas, in the context of explicitly surveilling her movements, not enough to warrant investigation and oversight?

I'm examining your words with eye toward what's rational and what a reasonable observer would consider appropriate. There's no way, zero chance, that you and others here would be dismissive of such activities and threat if we were talking about Obama associates having a US ambassador tailed. So I'm looking for a rationale that explains why you're dismissive about it now that amounts to a substantial defense.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

And my question remains -- in this incredibly divisive atmosphere, do you really think that would make a difference?

That is not a response to the question I asked.

My response would be --- only if there was overwhelming support from the American people that a line (or lines) has (have) been crossed. We're just not seeing overwhelming support from the American people in this situation - which was one of Pelosi's own requirements.

Let's settle the first issue before we rush to the special pleading (stated with all due respect).

[Mountain Man]

If I could give you examples of behavior which would break no laws but which would clearly be grounds for impeachment would it change your mind?

Your argument is not with me, it's with the Constitution.

[Cow Poke]

Why do we have to specify what exact implied threat Hyde and Parnas were talking about?

Sheeeesh, are you SERIOUS?!?!?!

If the "threat" was "we're gonna make sure you are removed from this position" - that's a WHOLE lot different than "we're gonna bury you where even the hungry dogs won't find you".

This whole thing is just the Democrats realizing they screwed up their sham impeachment and are trying to find ANYTHING to salvage their sorry butts.

[DivineOb]

Your argument is not with me, it's with the Constitution.

IOW you have your truth and you're not interested in even examining if it leads to absurdity.

[Mountain Man]

IOW you have your truth and you're not interested in even examining if it leads to absurdity.

It's nothing to do with changing my mind. I'm simply telling you what the Constitution says.

[firstfloor]

So good to see you. I've been missing you.

Hi CP, I hope you are doing well.

I saw a photo like this one in Aberdeen Art Gallery, taken on the Isle of Rassay.

0E3D5788-EE61-4FCF-BB0D-DF37E5625324.jpeg

[One Bad Pig]

Hilly Hobbit's claim

If you're going to insult someone, could you at least be clever about it?