Would it make any difference if there actually was dirt?

[intrepidity]

Seems to me it is entirely moot.

It happens to be the case that there's nothing there, but even if--in another scenario, with different actors--wouldn't it be just as wrong and impeachable if the target *were* dirty?

I think it may be important to emphasize this, lest the narrative get bogged down in irrelevent issues.

What do you think?

[Pachamama]

1. Irrelevant

That’s like a bank robber claiming that after they picked up the money from the road it’s theirs when it fell off the getaway car that it’s found money.

A crime was committed by Trump and his co-conspirators

[klook]

2. Legally, no.

Politically, yes.

[Nevermypresident]

3. Agree.

Only it would be used to muddy the waters by trump/rethugs.

[Takket]

4. no, this is no different than police searching your home without a warrant.

[Beartracks]

6. Good analogy. n/t

[Beartracks]

5. Two wrongs still wouldn't have made a right.

But in this case, there was only one wrong: Trump.

=========

[Claritie Pixie]

7. No of course not. His actions are independent of that.

They will keep parroting the Biden conspiracy though to confuse people. Especially if Ukraine follows through on doing what he wants them to do.