|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 10:00:30 GMT -5
Instead, they're not even listening (they never have listened) to the case for Trump's innocence. Innocence-of-a-crime-worthy-of-being-removed-from-office, I'll give you that. But he is VERY guilty of trying to use US Foreign Policy for his own personal advantage. That's begging the question. I do not accept that.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 28, 2020 10:02:12 GMT -5
Innocence-of-a-crime-worthy-of-being-removed-from-office, I'll give you that. But he is VERY guilty of trying to use US Foreign Policy for his own personal advantage. That's begging the question. I do not accept that. That, and it's flat out wrong on every level. But other than that....
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jan 28, 2020 10:35:12 GMT -5
As this topic is so toxic I have avoided it for the most part. I won't say a whole lot because there are several here that I have a genuine affection for and they are on the other side of the divide. There are a lot of details to the tale: dates, statements, opinions, unpronounceable names, motivations, perceptions of motivations, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I have filtered it down to this simplistic statement. If you think DJT committed an impeachable offence then you must believe that Joe Biden did nothing wrong by putting his crack head son on that board. If you believe that JB did nothing wrong then we really don't have anything to discuss and I will let it go as a difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 10:40:40 GMT -5
As this topic is so toxic I have avoided it for the most part. I won't say a whole lot because there are several here that I have a genuine affection for and they are on the other side of the divide. There are a lot of details to the tale: dates, statements, opinions, unpronounceable names, motivations, perceptions of motivations, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have filtered it down to this simplistic statement. If you think DJT committed an impeachable offence then you must believe that Joe Biden did nothing wrong by putting his crack head son on that board. If you believe that JB did nothing wrong then we really don't have anything to discuss and I will let it go as a difference of opinion. I would say it a bit differently. I would say that if you think DJT committed an impeachable offense by what he did, then you must believe that President Obama and VP Biden did too. In fact, the evidence that the latter committed an impeachable offense is actually a matter of legal record, while the accusation that Trump did is at the level of hearsay at best.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 28, 2020 11:06:43 GMT -5
Hearsay ? ? ? ? Really ? ? ? ? His own people are saying one after another that he said and intended that. I'll grant you it's not conduct that is going to get him removed from office. And probably others (many others?) have done similar things throughout American History.
But it ain't Hearsay. The only person in his own administration that denies it is Trump. And we know what a truth teller he is.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 11:08:05 GMT -5
Yes, hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 28, 2020 11:08:48 GMT -5
Hearsay ? ? ? ? Really ? ? ? ? His own people are saying one after another that he said and intended that. I'll grant you it's not conduct that is going to get him removed from office. And probably others (many others?) have done similar things throughout American History. But it ain't Hearsay. The only person in his own administration that denies it is Trump. And we know what a truth teller he is. Name one of the people who has said that (and actually would be in a position to know).
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 29, 2020 15:10:36 GMT -5
News Flash ! Mitch McConnell Agrees To Let Michael Bolton Testify During Senate Trial
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:06:50 GMT -5
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
New Constitutional scholar Alan (not really his area, he studied up and read a bunch of books recently, he explained to the Senate) tells us that any sitting POTUS can cheat in an election in any way they like as long as they believe their re-election is in the public interest.
How can you beat that kind of hand?
We might as well pack up and go home.
Free and fair elections were nice while they lasted.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:13:54 GMT -5
Hearsay ? ? ? ? Really ? ? ? ? His own people are saying one after another that he said and intended that. I'll grant you it's not conduct that is going to get him removed from office. And probably others (many others?) have done similar things throughout American History. But it ain't Hearsay. The only person in his own administration that denies it is Trump. And we know what a truth teller he is. Name one of the people who has said that (and actually would be in a position to know). John Bolton.
Better to keep him under a rock, though.
According to Dear Leaders's morning tweet, Bolton's testimony would be, simultaneously, a total lie and a threat to our national security.
That's a pretty neat trick, if you think about it for a second.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 17:22:17 GMT -5
As this topic is so toxic I have avoided it for the most part. I won't say a whole lot because there are several here that I have a genuine affection for and they are on the other side of the divide. There are a lot of details to the tale: dates, statements, opinions, unpronounceable names, motivations, perceptions of motivations, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have filtered it down to this simplistic statement. If you think DJT committed an impeachable offence then you must believe that Joe Biden did nothing wrong by putting his crack head son on that board. If you believe that JB did nothing wrong then we really don't have anything to discuss and I will let it go as a difference of opinion. Any defense of Trump that presumes nepotism is, in and of itself, a serious offense, suggests the person putting forth that defense has never heard of Don. Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Jared - or irony.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jan 29, 2020 17:45:19 GMT -5
I think I understand irony as much as the next guy (as long as it doesn't go over my head).
It bothers me somewhat that the ones wanting to cast DJT out of office and nullify the past and future votes of half the country are the same ones who have put on blinders and PRETENDED not to see the blatant corruption of Joe Biden. I also don't think that Hunter and the Trump kids are apples and apples but I'm not inclined to get down in the weeds arguing about it.
So you see what you see and I see what I see. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by david on Jan 29, 2020 17:48:34 GMT -5
After Pelosi and crew completely circumvented the required process step of having the entire House vote to authorize the Committee investigations? You mean that complete unfair abortion of process? Peter, I would like to know where you came up with this "required process." I cannot find any such requirement. If there is no such requirement, does that change your view on the legitimacy of the current impeachment process?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 29, 2020 18:03:56 GMT -5
After Pelosi and crew completely circumvented the required process step of having the entire House vote to authorize the Committee investigations? You mean that complete unfair abortion of process? Peter, I would like to know where you came up with this "required process." I cannot find any such requirement. If there is no such requirement, does that change your view on the legitimacy of the current impeachment process? The impeachment power is vested by the Constitution in the full house. The Majority Leader can't empower an impeachment proceeding by holding a press conference. For any impeachment subpoenas to have legal effect, the committee must be acting under the authorization of the full house, which means a vote of the full house on an empowering resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 29, 2020 18:10:40 GMT -5
Didn't the full house vote on the resolution before sending it to the Senate? Or are you saying they put the cart before the horse ?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 29, 2020 18:24:18 GMT -5
Since democrats like late term abortion, in your opinion is it too late to abort Schiff? I haven't been watching today but every time I've tripped over it, he's up there telling the same lies he's been telling for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 29, 2020 18:35:46 GMT -5
Peter, I would like to know where you came up with this "required process." I cannot find any such requirement. If there is no such requirement, does that change your view on the legitimacy of the current impeachment process? The impeachment power is vested by the Constitution in the full house. The Majority Leader can't empower an impeachment proceeding by holding a press conference. For any impeachment subpoenas to have legal effect, the committee must be acting under the authorization of the full house, which means a vote of the full house on an empowering resolution. I'm not sure what exactly you guys are talking about, but my understanding is that the specific constitutional reason that "Obstruction of Congress" doesn't work is specifically because the House decided it didn't want to wait to go through the proper channels -- the Court -- to force Trump to submit to the subpoenas. That's how it is supposed to be done. The Constitution establishes three equal branches of gov't. Schiff and the Democrats took the estimated gamble that with the press on their side, the public would never be wise to the fact that Schiff pulled a fast one. In the previous impeachment hearings, Clinton forced the courts to order his administration to comply with the subpoenas. That's how it's supposed to be done. But since the press is the actual driving force behind the impeachment, Schiff knew it was a pretty safe bet he'd get the distortion of the facts to favor him.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 18:58:11 GMT -5
Since democrats like late term abortion, in your opinion is it too late to abort Schiff? I haven't been watching today but every time I've tripped over it, he's up there telling the same lies he's been telling for 3 years. Nobody “likes” late term abortion. Hard to think of a more painful choice that a woman might be forced to make. Hope you don’t smoke near that straw man.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:04:17 GMT -5
I think I understand irony as much as the next guy (as long as it doesn't go over my head). It bothers me somewhat that the ones wanting to cast DJT out of office and nullify the past and future votes of half the country are the same ones who have put on blinders and PRETENDED not to see the blatant corruption of Joe Biden. I also don't think that Hunter and the Trump kids are apples and apples but I'm not inclined to get down in the weeds arguing about it. So you see what you see and I see what I see. No biggie. If International Corruption Fighter, Donald Trump, had genuine concerns about corruption in the Ukraine that might have involved the Bidens he had the Justice Department available to discuss or investigate his worries. His quid pro quo withholding of authorized aid was not the way to go about any sort of legit investigation. A shame we can’t hear from witnesses who might shed some light on why he decided to strong arm our ally rather than doing it as a legit non criminal might.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 29, 2020 19:07:20 GMT -5
I think I understand irony as much as the next guy (as long as it doesn't go over my head). It bothers me somewhat that the ones wanting to cast DJT out of office and nullify the past and future votes of half the country are the same ones who have put on blinders and PRETENDED not to see the blatant corruption of Joe Biden. I also don't think that Hunter and the Trump kids are apples and apples but I'm not inclined to get down in the weeds arguing about it. So you see what you see and I see what I see. No biggie. If International Corruption Fighter, Donald Trump, had genuine concerns about corruption in the Ukraine that might have involved the Bidens he had the Justice Department available to discuss or investigate his worries. His quid pro quo withholding of authorized aid was not the way to go about any sort of legit investigation. A shame we can’t hear from witnesses who might shed some light on why he decided to strong arm our ally rather than doing it as a legit non criminal might. How's that emoluments thing going?
|
|