But to your main point, do you remember why Democrats tried to impeach Trump? I am leaving it as a question, because I am curious how you are intending to defend that record.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_into_Joe_B...
The first time Trump used his power as president of a superpower to attempt to force a poor country to make up a fake investigation into his political rival. This is bad, basically unprecedented.
Is it bad? Sure. Unprecedented? Hardly[1]. Note that this precedented action was taken by Biden( same country too ). The only difference appears to be 'he is the wrong side'. But hey, Biden can attempt to have superpower force a poor country to do what he wants it to do ( and we can go into the details of the names in that article if you think it is worthwhile, because to a casual observer 'Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases' is mildly laughable ).
edit:
<< members of both parties voted to impeach both times
Ah, yes, the ever-present siren song of bipartisanship[2]. House had 10 defectors:
Party Yeas Nays Present Not Voting Democratic 222 0 0 0 Republican 10 197 0 4 Independent 0 0 0 0 Total 232 197 0 4
And note how the more recognizable defectors are either being pushed out of their seats ( Kinziger ) or reviled by their constituency and then pushed out ( Cheney ).
[1]https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/... edit[2]https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202117
This is literally because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain.
>> It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
> Ah, yes, the ever-present siren song of bipartisanship[2]. House had 10 defectors
That is indeed bipartisanship
Just a point of reference for me though. Would one count the impeachment as bipartisan or are we just playing with words? I mean, we can, but it gets silly fast.
<< because the individual in question was notably corrupt and not for political gain.
I did not you ask why. You used qualifier unprecedented, which was inaccurate ( I am giving you the benefit of the doubt ). And this is before we get to the part that finding a non-corrupt official there is kinda hard ( edit: which makes the distinction irrelevant ).
Yes, obviously
> You used qualifier unprecedented
The problem isn't pressuring Ukraine the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent. That kind of thing is absolutely unprecedented.
You are not one bit concerned that it is a little like saying "There is pee in the ocean"? It is certainly true, but it is irrelevant. I guess what I am saying is that you are technically correct[1] when it comes to definition, but wrong where it actually matters -- reality. I might as well start calling ocean pee now.
<< the problem is pressuring Ukraine for dirt on your opponent.
Is this the fragment[2] you are referring to?
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."
Seems like a reasonable request does it not? edit: if not, why not?
[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan [2]https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine...
The reality is Democrats and Republicans both said Trump should be removed from office. Amash and Romney the first time, a dozen more the next.
> "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.
This is a QAnon-tier conspiracy theory not based in fact, so yeah it seems like an unreasonable request.
Hmm. No. The reality is vast majority of Democrats and minimal amount of Republicans in House voted for Trump to be impeached ("House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"[1] ) and Senate tries that impeachment ( same source ).
I will restate what I said in previous post. You are right on a technicality thanks to how politicians from both parties have used and perverted the word bipartisan. With that out of the way, I suppose we can argue over perception of this and I can tell you that I have yet to meet someone in person, who would argue with a straight face it was a not a partisan show.
<< This is a QAnon-tier conspiracy theory not based in fact, so yeah it seems like an unreasonable request.
Hmm. Well, I don't want to be too much of a pedant, but the facts are not known until a request for inquiry is made. Trump wasn't asking to determine whether Sailor Moon did 9/11. That would be crazy and/or unreasonable. Based on the standard placed by Biden ( see previous post ), this was not completely unreasonable ( though I can easily say questionable and maybe even dumb ).
Still, note that QAnon/conspiracy theory keywords mean nothing to me and do not present a valid argument; it is a lazy dismissal at best. Frankly, given the frenzy with which Democrats and affiliated media pursued this story made me think there was some fire behind the smoke. Now, I mostly dismiss it, but I don't know who knew what when.
[1]https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.h...
This is basically an equivalent request, yeah.