Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Bribing a foreign country with taxpayer money to target a political opponent and cheat in the upcoming election wasn't enough for Republicans, yet they admitted it happened and it was wrong. Honestly, what would be!?! That is a great question for our press to raise.

Yes, it would be a  good question.  They would just say instantly..."I'm not going to get into hypotheticals".

 

The problem with this situation was that he was too easily able to silence direct witnesses and not release documents.  A new situation would need to be totally different in that aspect.

Link to comment

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The problem with this situation was that he was too easily able to silence direct witnesses and not release documents.  A new situation would need to be totally different in that aspect.

 

Like admitting to sexual assault on camera!?! :dunno

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Sure, as long as there is financials, paper trail and eye witnesses that Trump can't silence.  Look, people like Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz will defend Trump till death.  But, I believe that if iron clad evidence (not just hearsay or second hand people saying stuff) such as an actual paper trail of banking documents and TAX RETURNS...etc.

What little we do know about his financials in the public STRONGLY suggests a bevy of financial crimes. The only problem is the Supreme Court won't be ruling until June but it's looking like they will rule in favor of releasing the tax returns. The paper trail will be extremely strong but my worry is the excuse will again be it's not impeachable. This time they will say well, he did that when he wasn't the President. That's why hopefully House would have a sweeping impeachment this time with everything from that to emoluments to human rights violations. 

Link to comment

I honestly think the Dems really messed this one up. I still don't understand why witnesses like Bolton, Rudy, and Lev were not compelled to testify. I think that was a huge mistake. They got the GOP to go on record, but at what real benefit?

 

Shiff was masterful and his arguments would hold up in any actual court of law, but this is really the court of partisan public opinion. There is just enough ambiguity and mafioso like innuendo that people can hide behind it. 

  • Plus1 3
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I honestly think the Dems really messed this one up. I still don't understand why witnesses like Bolton, Rudy, and Lev were not compelled to testify. I think that was a huge mistake.

I agree that the Dems didn't to the best job of this.  However, Trump didn't allow those three to testify and it would have taken months in the courts to get them forced to testify....and even then it's not guaranteed.  Trump was fighting like hell in the courts to keep them quiet.

 

So, it's either fight it in court for months...or go ahead and vote on impeachment of these two articles.  Crap shoot either way.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Democrats proved their case and got Republicans on record and can still compel Parnas, Bolton ect to testify in the House. Looks like that is the plan

I agree with this plan but they should do it pretty soon before people lose interest and to give time for legal challenges from Trump.  What can be gained from this?  Getting sworn testimony is paramount.  That way Trump and trumpers in Congress will have some questions to answer and can’t hide behind the “Trump just was investigating corruption” BS narrative. 


 

Link to comment

@BigRedBuster I don't think Trump blocked Bolton or Rudy, did he? I think they we're just never compelled with a subpoena.

 

Surely the Supreme Court should have been able to immediately hear cases on this too. It should be two weeks tops for a decision. I really think a week at most though. Give 2 days to prepare argument, 2 days to make arguments, and a day to rule. This is as big as it gets, it should be an expedited process. These lawyers get way too much time (and I say that knowing full well that you have to do a lot of research to prepare a good case, but this is the big time!).

Link to comment

30 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Surely the Supreme Court should have been able to immediately hear cases on this too. It should be two weeks tops for a decision. 


Should or would? Trump’s financial records suit from April 2019 won’t be decided by SCOTUS until June 2020. We saw Roberts’ lack of initiative the last three weeks. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, ZRod said:

@BigRedBuster I don't think Trump blocked Bolton or Rudy, did he? I think they we're just never compelled with a subpoena

 

Yes, he did.  There was one witness that was subpoenaed and the WH took them to court to stop it.  I believe Bolton was subpoenaed and they were told they will got to court for that too and that's when the Dems backed off and decided it was going to take too long going through courts.

 

So...basically, the WH has said, "You need to go to court to enforce your subpoenas".  Then, in court they argued "The house Democrats are not legally able to go to court to enforce their subpoenas".

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...