Comments by "D M" (@DM-dk7js) on "Democrats eyeing new evidence in Trump impeachment probe" video.

  1. elgen0314 kinda hard to procure evidence when trump obstructed congress defying 71 subpoenas. Just saying.
    3
  2. Follow the brick sure....within reason. The fact of the matter is that no president has obstructed to this level. Given that it is unprecedented, it is clearly the time to take action. Bill Clinton at least cooperated with congress, even if he did perjure himself. If only trump cooperated AT ALL, as well. Nonetheless, this level of obstruction far surpasses any other president. That’s why it’s warranted to send articles based on obstruction. After all, there’s never been a level of obstruction this blatant.
    3
  3. nomaad000 kinda hard to procure evidence when the president defied 71 subpoenas. Just saying.
    3
  4. elgen0314 that doesn’t mean he gets to defy 71 subpoenas..... If that were the case, Clinton could have avoided impeachment by simply not cooperating with congress.
    2
  5. Follow the brick road because, as Nancy said like day one, that would prolong impeachment into election season—which nobody wants.
    2
  6. Follow the brick road fair points. Kind of. But let me ask two questions: 1. So when do you find it appropriate to check a president? If this unprecedented action does not warrant checking, what hypothetical situation in your opinion would? What possible situation could be worse than this unprecedented action? 2. Secondly, do you not recall Lindsay Graham’s words regarding Nixon? “The day that Nixon refused to comply with congressional subpoenas is the day he became impeachable”. So why does committing an act 71x great than Nixon suddenly become not impeachable? If Nixon was impeachable for denying congressional subpoenas, and Clinton was impeached for a lesser offense of perjury, how can trump possibly not be worthy of impeachment when his offense far exceeds BOTH?
    2
  7. Melissa Abercrombie but he didn’t block 71 subpoenas. And even Lindsay graham said Nixon’s refusal to comply with subpoenas was impeachable...... Let alone SEVENTY ONE refusals to comply.
    2
  8. elgen0314 I’m not sure what context of mine you’re responding to.
    2
  9. Melissa Abercrombie and as I said, and Lindsay Graham said, “the day Nixon refused to comply with subpoenas is the day he became impeachable”. So why is that not the case for trump? Especially when the offense is demonstrably greater? Similarly, if Clinton can be impeached for perjury, why is trump not impeachable for committing a (again) far greater offense?
    2
  10. william dohn you haven’t stated which “lie” I said so yes you are being rude. Address the substance. Tell me which lie. Refute my argument.
    2
  11. william dohn you’re still not refuting my argument and committing ad hominem fallacies. Do it. If I’m so stupid, it should be easy for you. Do it. Refute the argument.
    2
  12. william dohn no it’s not. I’ve made several arguments. I compared Clinton and Nixon’s impeachment’s are comparisons set through historical precedent. It appears you simply CANT refute my argument. You should see how silly you look insulting me yet declaring your intellectual superiority. One of us stuck to the topic. One of us attempting to be civil. One of us isn’t. Now for the last time, do you care to address my argument or are you more interested in insulting people on the internet?
    2
  13. elgen0314 and as my very first comment said: it is difficult to obtain evidence when subpoenas are defied. Do you disagree with that? Can you not see the difficulty in obtaining evidence when 71 subpoenas are defied? That really shouldn’t be controversial. The evidence is out there, it’s simply being blocked from coming to light.
    2
  14. william dohn you certainly have lost the debate at this point. In any civil discourse you’d be thrown out of the room by now. It exposes your own flaws when you have to resort to insults....not mine.
    2
  15. Follow the brick road Follow the brick road good debate, appreciate the civility: 1. Nancy has stated that going to the courts would tie up the inquiry for 6-8 months which would then make impeachment bleed into the election cycle. NOBODY, dem or rep, wants that. And above all, TRUMP doesn’t want that. Neither do the Dem candidates. NO ONE. So that is HER reason why she has not gone to the courts. HER reason. Not necessarily my view. However, and in MY view, we can use historical precedence (like the legal system does so often) to compare trumps offenses to prior impeachable offenses. My logic is that if defying a subpoena is an impeachable offense (Nixon) and perjury (which is a lesser offense than obstruction) is an impeachable offense (Clinton), then defying 71 subpoenas is unquestionably an impeachable offense and....to be candid— hilariously obvious. Especially if you take away the R or D next to their names! Sure maybe they should have went to court....but I do not believe you have made a compelling refutation of my comparing of Nixon, Clinton, and Trump in the way outlined above, IF your argument is something OTHER than you simply think they should have went to the courts and tied up trump into the campaigning cycle..... On that note, trump should probably thank Pelosi for not dragging it into his campaign and rally season. Again, it should be painfully clear that getting impeachment over quickly was actually a benefit and a CONCESSION to Trump’s election efforts, but I digress. 2. Regarding Lindsey Graham, what he thought about Nixon regarding impeachment actually IS ABSOLUTELY relevant, as this is how we gauge legality—on PAST historical precedent. So to write it off as irrelevant, as you have, seems a bit disingenuous to me. The legal system doesn’t exclusively work on a case by case basis the way you imply—it leans on historical precedent for guidance in sentencing ALSO. Again, I simply believe you’re being disingenuous by writing off the historical standards that we’ve impeached presidents for in the past. Again, it is completely disingenuous to write off the standards and historical precedent for which we have impeached presidents for in the past. Lastly, guess who said this: “The mob pleads the fifth”. Donald J Trump. So if you acknowledge that trump was JUSTIFIED to defy SEVENTY ONE subpoenas....you must equate him to the mob. And that’s by HIS own standards! If you simply believe Dems should have went to court...then so be it perhaps they should have. But I’ve laid out more than a few reasons why it’s DRASTICALLY more important that TRUMP should have complied. Ya know, because “the mob pleads the fifth,” as trump so eloquently said. Merry Christmas.
    2
  16. Follow the brick road Follow the brick road Follow the brick road Nancy’s reason is pretty solid considering McConnell said he’s cooperating with the White House lol. I don’t blame her for doing what she’s doing. I mean, that’s a huge deal McConnell said that. Also, one of the aspects of Nixon’s impeachment was the defiance of a subpoena....in addition to the watergate scandal. Much in the same way Trump’s defiance of 71 subpoenas is in addition to the Ukraine fiasco. And lastly regarding pleading the fifth....I understand your argument and you’re right. You’re certainly not wrong. However I’m just going by what Donald Trump said regarding Hillary Clinton pleasing the fifth. “The mob pleads the fifth”. Those are trumps own words. He said it. And I agree with him. He should have complied. Because the mob pleads the fifth. That holds true if it’s Hillary Clinton and trump alike. And I simply believe WE (yes you and I both voted for trump to prevent Hillary and I live near pivotal macomb MI) elected a corrupt man to fight corruption. And of course that can’t possibly work. Happy New Year. (Better lol?)
    2
  17. elgen0314 I say the exact same thing to you. I believe you are ignorant to the point of absurdity. That’s why assertions are pointless. And everything you just said are assertions. I’ve actually laid out a very logical and concise argument, for one very minute and specific aspect of this entire fiasco. It is you who hasn’t. It is you who the future generations are already laughing at. It is you who’s on the wrong side of history. It is you who has lowered the bar so PITIFULLY low. And most importantly—it is you who has chosen feelings over facts. Epistemology over conspiracy theories, BRO. CONSPIRACY THEORIES, are not WOKE! Epistemology....is WOKE! Ironic.
    2
  18. william dohn you’re still just making assertions dude. You lost.
    2
  19. bellyacre1 nope. Not treason. Add that to the long list of words misused by trump supporters. Just don’t let me find you accusing Dems of implementing 1984 type tactics when it’s you guys who are doing just that.
    1
  20. william dohn you might have a foot to stand on and say that if you addressed the substance of my arguments. But you didn’t. So address the substance or move along. I haven’t been rude to you there’s no reason for you to be rude to me.
    1