Are any facts disputed?

read your link,, Graham isn't an Oracle either, Bettr yet read the Constituitional text
~~

Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, agreed that the record did suggest that Clinton had lied under oath, which could constitute an impeachable offense. But she wasn’t impressed with Graham’s explanation.

First of all, Bloch said, “impeachment isn’t about ‘cleansing the office.’ That’s what an election is for.
Impeachment (in the House) and conviction (in the Senate) is about removing someone who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment is not just a way to attach a scarlet letter to an officer who behaved badly.”
 
Here we go...

Does anyone disagree that Rudy, at Trumps direction, told Ukraine that they would not get their money unless they announced on CNN an investigation into Joe Biden?

That at no time did Trump ask to have any corruption not related to electoral politics investigated?



Are there any facts in dispute?

No. No facts are in dispute. America is still waiting for Democrats to produce some though.
 
I do not feel like looking for it but there is a thread where many Trumppers argue just that.
 
they're not doing it becomes the whip is not getting the answers wanted.

they will drag this out for a long while.

then they will lose bigly in 2020.
 
Back
Top