GOP complains impeachment hearings are held in secret, votes to keep them in secret

Ethan.  You're back.  What a... well, no, not a surprise.  What do you call it when you full expect something, and it happens?

The only reason trump was able to win was because of the poor design of the electoral system.

You question was this: "Like the majority of Americans supported Hillery?"

Of those that actually responded to the poll, the majority did support Hillary.

The problem is your likening, not the reality that contradicted it.

Debatable.

I am pretty confident the laws of the Ukraine are for the Ukraine to investigate, not Trump.

  Secondly, 'assumption of intention' was laid out by name.  "Look into some corruption regarding XYZ company" would have avoided this whole mess,

but no one ever accused Trump of being smart. 

Just to head your rebuttal off at the pass "... do us a favor..." is not the office of the President's duty to receive.

Again.  Considering it already was once, and the specific names mentioned by Trump were never under scrutiny, it lends itself to a "favor" being wanted.  Not "justice". 

Why were they of interest, again?

Asking for "a favor" isn't in that agreed upon treaty.

Considering Biden was never named, and there was an investigation, that actually started before Hunter was on the board at Burisima (sp?),

...its probably a safe assumption that whatever Trump is looking for is nothing more than something exemplified in his own house.

Remind me... who is the accused?  Because its not Joe B or Hunter at the moment.

Well, most people aren't deliberately obtuse, Ethan.

Its just happy coincidence that election season is right around the corner, and this wasn't brought up 2 years ago.

What were those crimes, again, against the Bidens?  Riiiiiiight.  Spurious allegation.

Considering we are talking impeachment and not 'trial', this is a non-sequitur.  HoR and Senate are not courts of law, they are the board ousting the CEO. 

Its up to law enforcement to indict, but in much as the person whom would indict was hand picked by Trump, we see a flaw in the system.

You only read half the question.  Re-read it, Ethan.

The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived.  The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand. 

Hunter Biden was both a lawyer and a lobbyist by trade.  If you think a gas company has no need for lawyers or lobbyists, you are deluding yourself.  Hunter's salary as reported was about 50K a month.  If you consider a board member to be both legal council and lobbyist rolled into one, that's a deal.

But Trump did.  THAT is what makes the crime.  US didn't gain, Trump does.  See the connection?

Well, how would he have?

Whats 12x50K, Ethan?

Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.

Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law

Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.

The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime? 

Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation,

 And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.

His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money

The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid.

Nonsense. Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?

The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.

Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?

With the original investigator sacked.

Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.

Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.

So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries?

I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.

What is the minimum dollar value where it becomes a crime?

This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.

Why?

Again, not true.  Examples include Humanitarian conditions and pollution issues.

I wasn't aware either of those circumstances require intelligence. 

You aren't president, and you aren't a billionaire.  Does that mean you aren't smart, Ethan?

Because is is with holding money for something that would benefit him, personally.

A smear campaign in election season has value.

Secondly, if the money is held, there is no reason to think that a second investigation netting the same results as the first would earn them the money.  

Tangentially.  H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember?

It was an investigation into the CEO of the company, and his in-roads with the prosecutor that was investigating him. Its quite possible....

...the investigation never found Hunter to be engaging in anything underhanded.  

Friendly reminder, an investigation later, and we don't have 'an accused' regarding the Bidens.  

Indeed.  And, by general consensus, said prosecutor should have been sacked, as he was viewed on the world stage as soft on corruption. 

Seems odd to sack a guy soft on corruption if your son is corrupt.

Seems really odd to want a new prosecutor in, one that is harder on corruption, if your son is corrupt.  

Dude, he repeated the same line of inquiry with China over the Bidens, and for some reason asked China to look into Elizabeth Warren. His MO is pretty clear if you take the blinders off.  

No, I am familiar with the video.

I am still asking you what the crime was, in so much as the prosecutor in question was widely viewed as soft on corruption.

This, again, seems counter intuitive.  If your son is not named by a corrupt investigator,

and your son is indeed corrupt, why would you want a new prosecutor in? 

This whole "firing the corrupt guy to get a non-corrupt guy for a billion dollars" seems a bit drawn out. 

Why not just pay the corrupt investigator off, in so much as he was, ya know, corrupt.

Let me cut to the chase for you: if you had ill intentions, the Bidens went about it backwards with more risk.

If your intentions are pure, that was exactly how to handle the situation.  

The Senate doesn't bring charges, either.

The president suffers no consequences from being found guilty and removed from office by the Senate.

He would need to be formally charged by the AG after his removal, since, (convieeeeeeeeniently.....) the DoJ's policy is not to indict a sitting president.  

Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor whom had not named his son in any malfeasance.

So, of course, logically, fire the guy that hasn't named your kid.  Makes TOTAL sense, Ethan. 

Secondly, do you honestly think...

The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand. 

Negative, the 'old' investigator sat idle on the case for quite a bit of time before he was replaced.

So, of course, the investigator that is not finding corruption in the company he is investigating is a prime target for putting in some one else.  Brilliant strategy.  

Trump gets a smear job, that is gain.

Trump might even get....

Anything good for the country would be good for Trump, but not everything good for Trump is good for the country. This is a prime example of such.

That sounds more like his kid profiting than Joe.  

Because the Trump-lings are perfect examples of what NOT to do.  

What is 50Kx12, Ethan?

Secondly, I think your definition of 'personal' is borked.  If my kid gets a birthday card with money it it, I'm not profiting.

I am telling you what he pocketed.

600k. That was Hunter's salary,

...so we know who it went to.

And you mean you want another  investigation. The first one didn't name Hunter of wrong doing.

...birthday card with money in it

So your confidence that Trump shouldn't have conducted the investigated himself is gone? I prove you wrong and you simply ooze to yet another question?

Please tell us the law that gives Trump the authority to ask a foreign country to investigate humanitarian conditions and pollution issues. I can cite you the law requiring Trump to ask about corruption.

No sir. He withheld the money as prescribed by law....

You want the investigation stopped. Before your crooked son is fingered.

An investigation is not a smear campaign.

Because his father was VP at the time. One doesn't need to be accused for an investigation to be proper.

The senate convicts.

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.

Untrue. He was sacked from the case.

An investigation is not a smear job, though it is interesting you think it is. Biden could have been cleared by an investigation.

Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?

Goes to motive, Ethan.  I contend Trump does it for personal gain.  If the company Hunter was part of was under investigation before Hunter arrived, it would stand to reason Trump should have asked more about Burisma than Hunter and Joe, but... well, you aren't going to answer the question.  "Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?

The problem with this motive is that it can be justified, to some part (whatever part it may be is irrelevant), that it's both in the nation's interest to uncover corruption at the level of the vice-presidency as well as personal gain for Trump.

You would be insincere to assume the nation doesn't benefit from cleaning up the institution of the vice-presidency.

The criminal case John Durham is currently looking into also is partly a personal benefit for Trump.

 Such an investigation already transpired.

Such spurious anecdote followed up by a request into closed investigation,...

...specifically against the Bidens (and not Burisma)

...as we head into election season are obvious, the President wants dirt. 

I contend Trump does it for personal gain.

"Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?

cite the law that prevents Trump from asking about humanitarian and pollution issues.

Then please, demonstrate what laws he feels was being broken in the Ukraine regarding the Bidens.

It was already investigated once, then again, surely your opinion on the matter is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Baseless ones very much are. 

And he wasn't accused of wrong doing when the investigation started, he wasn't there, and he wasn't accused of wrong doing when Joe left office either.

3 new prosecutors looked into it.  Dead horse regarding Hunter, Ethan.

Name the law, bro.  

Name the law, bro.  

He was sacked from the position, he was sacked because he was ineffectual.

Please remind me of what I said about Trump's campaign manager meeting the Russians,

...and I will let you know what Mueller thought about it.

The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.

If there were no Bidens, why would the United States be interested? 

You want to impeach a president for what seems "obvious" to you. 

Because what Biden did was illegal.

I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking...

You keep asking, 

 Ukrainian investigations alone will not fly in an American court.

 Is there a statute of limitation on corruption?

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.

Extortion

He said there was no collusion.

He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime.

Unless the official was corrupt, which was the complaint from various allies. 

A developing resource for world trade in a country being annex by Russia is a pretty good reason.

According to what statute.

Okay, so, no law forbids it, that means he has the authority to ask.  Thank you.

Is a crime,..

Incorrect.  He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime,...

DJT Jr was let out of Muellers net literally because he didn't think what he was doing was a crime,...