houag80 said:

---

There you go.....a non answer and then demeaning said poster as a rtard. Flagged.

---

I answered. No it's not unprecedented. Partisan impeachment voting is the precedent.

Johnson by party
122-2 R
4-45 D

Clinton by party
Article 1
223-5 R
5-200 D

It was a dumb question, just own it and move on.

And he disappears when challenged.

I'm sure he's putting his kids to bed or otherwise attending to work.

What a *****.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

houag80 said:

---

There you go.....a non answer and then demeaning said poster as a rtard. Flagged.

---

I answered. No it's not unprecedented. Partisan impeachment voting is the precedent.

Johnson by party
122-2 R
4-45 D

Clinton by party
Article 1
223-5 R
5-200 D

It was a dumb question, just own it and move on.

---

You're a ****ing liar. Your quoted votes show bipartisan support.

For trump, not a single Republican voted in favor, and a handful of Dems votes against.

---

122-2 and 223-5 is bipartisan to you?

Here are the party line voting percentages:
Johnson 96.7%
Clinton 97.7%
Trump 98.8%

97% party line vote is "bipartisan" in your mind but 98% is "unprecedented"? Just take the L and move on.

Here's your moral victory trophy because 2 republicans went against their party in 1868 meeting your definition of "bipartisan"

Number of votes breaking from party/total votes.

There's only been 3 of these things in 200+ years but they were all partisan.

Fox News is in on the conspiracy now too.

Quote:

---

also included in the documents were a series of materials that raised further questions about the Trump administration's actions in Ukraine. Text messages, for example, seemingly showed Parnas' associates tracking the movements of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled in May 2019.

She's talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off," Hyde wrote on March 25, 2019. It was unclear how he would know that her computer was not on.

"She's next to the embassy. ... Not in the embassy. Private security. Been there since Thursday."

Federal prosecutors in New York are separately investigating Giuliani's business dealings, according to multiple reports, including whether or not the former New York City mayor failed to register as a foreign agent.

A federal judge ruled earlier this month that Parnas' cellphone data could be provided to House investigators.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-drop-impeachment-files-ahead-of-vote

aggieforester05 said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Number of votes breaking from party/total votes.

There's only been 3 of these things in 200+ years but they were all partisan.

---

That's a really misleading way to calculate it. Having member of both parties vote for impeachment gives much more legitimacy than having members of the opposition party dissent and no members of the president's party vote in favor. This impeachment was unprecedented in that regard. Nothing more than political hit job and abuse of power to influence an election. So much so, that members of their own party were disgusted by their actions.

---

Your objection is nonsensical. 97% party lines is similarly partisan to a 98% party line vote. If 2 or 3 defect, as they did 150 years ago, so what? It's still hyper partisan.

Republicans voting 100% party line is evidence of Republican partisanship, not democrats. Now that has never happened before. But the overall vote is similar to past votes, within 1-2%.

Nobody would really care if 3 republicans out of 197 flipped. 1.5% voting against the party doesn't legitimize or delegitimize anything.

The Republican voting line is unusual, never happened before, but democrats had a normal number of defections. It was the Republicans that were unusually partisan this go round, that's what you're unintentionally objecting to. And I agree, many of them will regret stumping for a criminal.

Constitutional abuse of office and obstruction of Congress for starters. Likely violation of the Impoundment Act, which is a civil/administrative law, not criminal. But committed in pursuit of another crime.

Defrauding a charity.
Decades of fraud and tax cheating before he even got into politics.
And I suspect money laundering for the Russian mob but we'll see if/when the bank records case is resolved.

Republicans were talking like this a week before Nixon resigned. Republicans in safe seats on the judiciary committee tried to protect him, most were swept out of office for the perception they aided the cover up.

Every time there's a leak Trump looks worse, why are none of the leaks exculpatory? He's the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party.