Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Email or an actual letter?

Leaning towards letters.  But I will first give them a chance to respond to the media as to why they chose to not call witnesses or convict.   I’ve decided that if I’m going to complain about their performance then I should give them an opportunity to justify it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

Interesting thing about this.     Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

Republicans have badly damaged the Republic tonight.

 

Assuming Romney, Collins and Murkowski are the only yeses and Roberts sits on his hands instead of breaking a 50-50 tie out of some misguided sense of deference, this will have been a sham with Republicans voting to deny information to us because it's what best for them politically.

 

"Yeah there's relevant witnesses but there's no sense in hearing from them, we already know what we're gonna do and it might be bad for us."

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Maybe if Rand, a GD Libertarian of all things, cared about the whistleblower's right to protection from persecution for blowing the whistle, would phrase his question differently instead of trying to out them, he wouldn't have anything to bellyache about.

 

Unless he just wants to out them and that's the point.

 

Rand Paul is a frequent disappointment. At least his dad actually walked the walk. Rand is just a douche coasting on his dad's coattails.

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

14 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

That’s true, except if it involves concealing evidence of suspected wrongdoing by the president. If there is a reasonable belief that this has occurred then Congress has the right to investigate and obtain that information.  The president cannot hide behind privilege if he has done wrong.  Otherwise Congress’ constitutional authority would be diminished and the president’s activities would be unchecked. That’s exactly what is happening in this case. 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

FFS

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

 

32E867F7-50EF-4AB6-86EF-39BC4FA4388A.jpeg

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

Quote

 

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. 2/15 

 

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.” 3/15 

 

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. 4/15 

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. 5/15 

 

When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. 6/15 

 

But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. 7/15 

 

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. 8/15 

 

I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. 9/15 

 

The Senate has spent nine long days considering this “mountain” of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. 10/15 

 

Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for an impeachable offense. 11/15 

 

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. 12/15 

 

If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. 13/15 

 

It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party. 14/15 

 

Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with “the consent of the governed,” not at the pleasure of the United States Congress.
Let the people decide. 15/15 

 

 

This will be Senator Alexander's legacy. And it is hilariously sad to read.

 

TL;DR: "He did it; but we don't care, because we need to rig elections to win." Republicans/enablers. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

Carl Bernstein got it right - This will be a very shameful episode in our history.   My fear is how this will embolden  trump to do even more unconstitutional acts.  And God help us all if the guy gets reelected.  Take a lesson from history, many tyrants were at their weakest just before they gained their power - they had opposition but not enough 'good men' stepped forward to topple them before they consolidated their power.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-shameful-episode-in-our-history-carl-bernstein-scorches-senate-for-cover-up-after-alexanders-likely-trial-ending-no-vote/

Link to post

9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime

Going to court likely would have taken months to resolve and they simply didn’t have that kind of time.  You know this to be true. To address your other point. Executive privilege was NEVER exerted.  So that deflates your argument about that. 

Look, if you are ok with a government where the president is not held accountable for not in any way complying with legitimate congressional requests without having to go to court , then that’s your deal.  If you’re also ok with the president leveraging a foreign entity to help him politically, again that’s on you.  
 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

 

"You have to go to court to enforce your subpoenas."

 

"You can't go to court to enforce your subpoenas."

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
57 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Can you imagine what will happen the next 9+ months now that Trump & Bill Barr know knew what they can get away with even if they get caught red-handed again!?! 

 

39 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Uncle Blazer says to keep your head up

 

 

 

 

 

Both Q and Blazer have right.

 

Republicans going full-blown

 

jpeg

 

... and deciding they don't need any more information to trash the constitution and lay down at the feet of their corrupt leader does NOT mean that info doesn't exist. And it's going to continue to dribble out. Which puts them in a very awkward spot. They're going to have to either continue to ignore it (like they already do w/ most stuff that is terrible about Trump) or  try to explain away how it isn't that important or wouldn't have changed their plans.

 

With this decision, the GOP have become fully subservient full-time enablers.

 

Many say they want to leave this decision to voters in an election year, as if justice doesn't matter every 2 years.

 

We're going to have to do their jobs for them. Kick their a$$ at the ballot box, save the democracy from this corrupt buffoon trying to destroy it and take their seats away. Send the GOP into the wilderness until they decide they're going to try to be better than this.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...