agjacent said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

OK. What impeachable offenses has he committed?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

---

What impeachable offenses? Um... I guess you're being sincere? Maybe you're trolling me? If you've watched the news at all, then you know damn well what impeachable offenses he's committed. You may disagree (and ultimately the senate will decide) but to pose the question in such a flippant way like you have no possible, earthly idea what things Trump has done that millions of people believe rise to the level of impeachment makes you look simple, tbh.

---

You typed a lot of words and said a whole lot of nothing.

Try answering the question for real, or go buy yourself some tea.

agjacent said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

OK. What impeachable offenses has he committed?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

---

What impeachable offenses? Um... I guess you're being sincere? Maybe you're trolling me? If you've watched the news at all, then you know damn well what impeachable offenses he's committed. You may disagree (and ultimately the senate will decide) but to pose the question in such a flippant way like you have no possible, earthly idea what things Trump has done that millions of people believe rise to the level of impeachment makes you look simple, tbh.

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

Why don't the Dems hold a vote to officially start the process? Because they don't need to. I know that chaps Rs' asses, but it's the plain truth. The various standing committees are already empowered to investigate the incidents in question. Dems don't want this dragging out through the campaign season, no matter what your right-wing news echo chamber tells you. Dems want Rs on the record re Trump's impeachment so they can campaign on that. If Dems acquiesce to R demands to take this (completely unnecessary) vote, then Rs will clog up the process with stunts and shenanigans in an effort to keep the actual impeachment proceeding delayed until the election in November makes it moot (assuming Trump loses) and they never have to go on the record. I don't understand all this R whining about Dems using every advantage they have, as if Rs haven't done the same kinds of things in the past and wouldn't do the same kinds of things in the future.

---

Wow.

Curious ... what username did you post under from 4/17/18 until last Thursday? Since you're full of such useful information ...

backintexas2013 said:

---

Pretty sure this is Lot Y. Push him too hard and he will call you racist.

I thought it was Mikus but now pretty sure it's Lot. Won't take a policy stand but is big into TDS

---

The sockpuppet accusations are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Hey, staff/mods! Can I get someone to add a confirmation to this post that I'm not Lot Y or Mikus or any other poster? That way I can just refer back to it when I inevitably get called a sock again in the future.

Thanks!

agjacent said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Pretty sure this is Lot Y. Push him too hard and he will call you racist.

I thought it was Mikus but now pretty sure it's Lot. Won't take a policy stand but is big into TDS

---

The sockpuppet accusations are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Hey, staff/mods! Can I get someone to add a confirmation to this post that I'm not Lot Y or Mikus or any other poster? That way I can just refer back to it when I inevitably get called a sock again in the future.

Thanks!

---

What username did you post under from 4/17/18 until last Thursday?

aginlakeway said:

---

agjacent said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Pretty sure this is Lot Y. Push him too hard and he will call you racist.

I thought it was Mikus but now pretty sure it's Lot. Won't take a policy stand but is big into TDS

---

The sockpuppet accusations are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Hey, staff/mods! Can I get someone to add a confirmation to this post that I'm not Lot Y or Mikus or any other poster? That way I can just refer back to it when I inevitably get called a sock again in the future.

Thanks!

---

What username did you post under from 4/17/18 until last Thursday?

---

agjacent said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agjacent said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Pretty sure this is Lot Y. Push him too hard and he will call you racist.

I thought it was Mikus but now pretty sure it's Lot. Won't take a policy stand but is big into TDS

---

The sockpuppet accusations are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Hey, staff/mods! Can I get someone to add a confirmation to this post that I'm not Lot Y or Mikus or any other poster? That way I can just refer back to it when I inevitably get called a sock again in the future.

Thanks!

---

What username did you post under from 4/17/18 until last Thursday?

---

---

Why don't you want to answer?

Nice comeback. But you didn't answer the very simple question.

So you didn't post on TexAgs from 4/17/18 to last Thursday. That's a fact.

I'm just curious who I am discussing this with ... and how rational you have proven to be as a TexAgs poster.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

It has been revealed, by someone in the room, that Mr. Taylor's "bombshell" testimony yesterday on the definitive Quid Pro Quo was............

wait for it..........

wait, it's too good......

Fourth hand info. Someone told someone who told someone who then told Taylor.

aginlakeway said:

---

Nice comeback. But you didn't answer the very simple question.

So you didn't post on TexAgs from 4/17/18 to last Thursday?

I'm just curious who I am discussing this with ... and how rational you have proven to be as a TexAgs poster.

---

If I tell you that no, I didn't post on TexasAgs between 04/17/18 and 10/17/19, would you believe me?

And even if you did believe me, would all the others on this forum who think I'm a sockpuppet believe me?

See - I understand how fond some people here are of completely unfounded conspiracy theories. With absolutely zero evidence, some will choose to believe that I'm a liar, pretending to be "agjacent" when really I'm someone else. There's no benefit to me engaging in this kind of "discussion" beyond what I've already done, which is ask for confirmation from staff/mods that I'm not some other user, and hope they provide said confirmation so I can refer back to it.

As you've clearly looked up my posting history, why don't you go read through it if you want to know how "rational" I am.

You know how you can tell it is a liberal sock account?

It never posts on the Mueller thread. An actual newbie would hit that thread hard, but anyone who has been around before knows that the mods will delete/ban any liberal who trolls that thread.

Why is it the MO of so many people on here to shout "SOCK!!!" instead of answering questions or engaging in the debate?

Rapier108 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

There's a 0.0% chance the senate removes him.

---

There is definitely a chance they would. Probably 5 Republicans who would vote for removal for any reason (Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Tillis/Burr) and plenty of others who would love for Trump to be gone, if they think they can get away with it.

---

Collins needs all the trump supporters she can for re-election. Same for Tillis. Both are sunk without them.

Rapier108 said:

---

You know how you can tell it is a liberal sock account?

It never posts on the Mueller thread. An actual newbie would hit that thread hard, but anyone who has been around before knows that the mods will delete/ban any liberal who trolls that thread.

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

Nancy Pelosi and the squad said it happened so it obviously did. There is no need for investigation. Convict and remove, that's all that matters. Dems have said as much when multiple dems have said "We have to impeach and remove so he doesn't win again."

Spotted Ag said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

Nancy Pelosi and the squad said it happened so it obviously did. There is no need for investigation.

---

The usual answer from the libs is "read the Mueller report."

FireAg said:

---

So it begs the question then...is this whole charade merely a Hail Mary attempt to sew enough doubt about Trump with the electorate so as to take back the WH next November? Throw enough **** against the wall and hope enough of the stink sticks to Trump to convince the electorate to remove him at the polls?

Is that the only play to combat a President that is presiding over a booming economy? "Yes, he has ushered in a booming economy for our nation, that frankly, is unprecedented, but in spite of that, he might be a bad guy so let's get rid of him anyway!"

Is that the actual play here, when it all comes down to it? Is this the only way to protect the RBG seat on the SCOTUS, and now that this is obvious, they have to overplay issues to try to paint the man as a criminal, regardless of the facts?

I don't think there will ever be an actual impeachment vote, and I think most people have accepted this as well...

---

According to Dem Rep Al Green, impeaching him is the only way the Dems can win which I think was a very revealing refreshing moment of honesty from a Dem congressman... So yes to all of the above. This is nothing more than a political Hail Mary stunt because they can't beat Trump in a fair fight with the current crop of loons in their primary.

The ironic thing about all of it is that its seemingly having the opposite impact as voters are getting fed up with the closed door process and lack of transparency and Trump and the RNC are raising boatloads of cash in their war chest.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

they won't do it b/c it screws over any Dem Senator running for POTUS. They would have to report to the senate daily and would not be able to hit the campaign trail, except areas close to DC.

---

The only Dem Senator it likely would not affect is Bernie Sanders. Bernie has lots of little donors that he can hit up for money over and over again, without having to be present to fundraise. Just send emails.

Booker, Harris and Klobuchar don't have that type of campaign organization.

Neither does Biden. His money is from big money donors who are getting maxed out under law. His burn rate is pretty high though. Spending more cash than he is taking in, ironically because he spends so much money on fundraising.

Oh I agree...the cash flow alone may very well help the Rs retake the House while keeping the Senate and WH...

aggiehawg said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

they won't do it b/c it screws over any Dem Senator running for POTUS. They would have to report to the senate daily and would not be able to hit the campaign trail, except areas close to DC.

---

The only Dem Senator it likely would not affect is Bernie Sanders. Bernie has lots of little donors that he can hit up for money over and over again, without having to be present to fundraise. Just send emails.

Booker, Harris and Klobuchar don't have that type of campaign organization.

Neither does Biden. His money is from big money donors who are getting maxed out under law. His burn rate is pretty high though. Spending more cash than he is taking in, ironically because he spends so much money on fundraising.

---

Maybe he needs to be appointed to the BOD of a Ukrainian energy firm? I hear they pay well...

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

It's not agjacnt's job to come up with proof. Calm down, these are just allegations for now. If you're sure he's innocent the facts will come out in public eventually.

Gary Johnson said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

It's not agjacnt's job to come up with proof. Calm down, these are just allegations for now. If you're sure he's innocent the facts will come out in public eventually.

---

You said the same exact thing with Mueller.

Gary Johnson said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

It's not agjacnt's job to come up with proof. Calm down, these are just allegations for now. If you're sure he's innocent the facts will come out in public eventually.

---

Everyone should assume he's innocent...that's how our country is supposed to work...

They aren't even REAL allegations until they are formally made in Congress...

But the assumption here is that he has indeed committed these 'crimes'...

I'm asking for proof that back ups these assertions...

He won't give us his taxes!

What is he trying to hide!

You want "proof" before an investigation? That's not how it works.

Gary Johnson said:

---

You want "proof" before an investigation? That's not how it works.

---

You want an investigation to find a crime.

That's not how it works either.

Rapier108 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

All I've heard on NPR the last two days on my commute is something about an investigation someone did on a fake PAC that gave $300k to Trumps campaign and some money to Pete Sessions.

Apparently, this is what will get trump now. I just continue to wonder where all these journalists were with these investigations on Democrats. I also really don't care until the media starts holding both parties accountable.

---

You're probably thinking of the two Ukranians who were charged with campaign finance violations for giving money to a pro-Trump PAC, but they did not donate to the Trump campaign itself. Even the indictment said that.

---

Sounds about right. Just found out interesting I've heard nothing about everything else in this thread. When I've been in the car it's been all about this. They are breathless about it.

Rapier108 said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

You want "proof" before an investigation? That's not how it works.

---

You want an investigation to find a crime.

That's not how it works either.

---

Precisely...

At least in a murder, there's a body...

In a bank robbery, there's money missing...

All we have so far is hearsay that contradicts an actual transcript (this remains the only concrete proof of the phone call in question to date!)...the people claiming a crime weren't even there for the actual call...

We don't even know if a crime was committed by anyone...there's no body...no missing money...

Hell, at least in Fast and Furious we had some of the actual guns recovered for the murders that were part of the original illegal sales...

Rapier108 said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

You want "proof" before an investigation? That's not how it works.

---

You want an investigation to find a crime.

That's not how it works either.

---

I'm pretty indifferent. Censure and community service seems fitting and a little funny for punishment if the allegations are correct.

Proclaiming innocence with 100% certainty without all the facts seems biased and hypocritically partisan.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

You want "proof" before an investigation? That's not how it works.

---

You want an investigation to find a crime.

That's not how it works either.

---

I'm pretty indifferent. Censure and community service seems fitting and a little funny for punishment if the allegations are correct.

Proclaiming innocence with 100% certainty without all the facts seems biased and hypocritically partisan.

---

Innocent until proven guilty...I presume he is 100% innocent and this is all a partisan witch hunt...now prove me wrong...

agjacent said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Nice comeback. But you didn't answer the very simple question.

So you didn't post on TexAgs from 4/17/18 to last Thursday?

I'm just curious who I am discussing this with ... and how rational you have proven to be as a TexAgs poster.

---

If I tell you that no, I didn't post on TexasAgs between 04/17/18 and 10/17/19, would you believe me?

And even if you did believe me, would all the others on this forum who think I'm a sockpuppet believe me?

See - I understand how fond some people here are of completely unfounded conspiracy theories. With absolutely zero evidence, some will choose to believe that I'm a liar, pretending to be "agjacent" when really I'm someone else. There's no benefit to me engaging in this kind of "discussion" beyond what I've already done, which is ask for confirmation from staff/mods that I'm not some other user, and hope they provide said confirmation so I can refer back to it.

As you've clearly looked up my posting history, why don't you go read through it if you want to know how "rational" I am.

---

That's pretty ironic since you posted a rather long reply on previous page about how obvious it is Trump should be impeached, and then in an "effort to reply in good faith" you still gave us zero evidence as to why.

Just saying obstruction of justice as the why is meaningless. Anyone can say anything about anybody but we are just supposed to take it at face value because the media and his enemies said so?

Gary Johnson said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agjacent said:

---

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

---

You have proof at least ONE of these allegations, correct? I mean you're not just assuming those things actually happened, right?

---

It's not agjacnt's job to come up with proof. Calm down, these are just allegations for now. If you're sure he's innocent the facts will come out in public eventually.

---

They aren't even allegations. Not substantial enough to rise to that level. Third or fourth hand hearsay is a rumor, scuttlebutt, not fact based.

Just a smear. The transcript of the call has been released and it is the best evidence of what transpired between Trump and Zelensky. The person that directly talked to Trump was Sondland and he said Trump directly told him, "No quid pro quo."

And even if there had been one, it was tied to the 2016 election and Ukraine's role in manufacturing the "black ledger" against Manafort. (Notably, Team Mueller never even mentioned the black ledger during his trial and the same would have been material relevant evidence as to tax evasion.)

Biden confessed on tape to a quid pro quo with Ukraine that directly benefited his son. That's personal graft and corruption. But notably he made that threat a few months before the DNC sent Alexandra Chalupa to demand the "evidence" against Manafort. Poroshenko expected that Hillary would win but he still had to deal with the Obama Administration for nearly another year. Once threatened, twice shy.

Quote:

---

Innocent until proven guilty...I presume he is 100% innocent and this is all a partisan witch hunt...now prove me wrong...

---

It might be. Until evidence from the investigation is made public we won't know enough to make very informed opinions. "Innocent until proven guilty" well duh.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

Innocent until proven guilty...I presume he is 100% innocent and this is all a partisan witch hunt...now prove me wrong...

---

It might be. Until evidence from the investigation is made public we won't know enough to make very informed opinions. "Innocent until proven guilty" well duh.

---

We have the evidence...we have the transcript...

We also have a text where one of the key figures in this, after being baited to the contrary, explicitly clarifies that there is no "quid pro quo" and that any assertion otherwise is false...

Libs don't want facts. They want their truth!