Jump to content
BANGKOK

JCauto

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JCauto

  1. Well, yeah, but that wasn't what I asked. I guess you'd rather avoid a substantive discussion about the consequences of these actions. Pity.
  2. Fair enough on the "grounds" versus "crimes". I fail to see how they're "flimsy". If you don't mind, as you've been quite reasonable in both responding and doing so with some substance, would you answer these questions or provide your thoughts in another way pertaining to these issues? 1. If a President DOES use US Government resources as a lever to get another country to investigate a domestic political opponent, do you believe that is impeachable or that it should be allowed? 2. If you order your subordinates to not obey a legally-issued subpoena to testify, is that okay or are you allowed to do this and thereby prevent direct testimony in a congressional investigation or is it obstruction of justice? 3. Are you at all concerned about the precedents that would be established should Trump et al get away with refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, obstruction, dragooning foreign governments into helping investigate domestic political opponents, etc.? Because no doubt they would, leading to an endless cycle of highly partisan and illegal activity at the top of the political process. As to the Bidens and Ukraine, forgive me if I am less than impressed especially given the numerous "nothingburgers" such as Benghazi, Hilary's e-mails, etc. Those were thoroughly investigated by a completely Republican-controlled congress and they laid how many charges? None, zero, zip, nada.
  3. There have been a few posters who have articulated the crimes quite eloquently. I'd refer you to those.
  4. Thanks! It's nice when people actually respond to questions with relevant answers. Interesting poll and information. It shows there is fatigue and that people are both tired of the partisan bickering and perceive that this is more of a political/media circus rather than anything that affects their daily lives. On the other hand, it also shows that these things change quite quickly as the difference was in polls between October and early November and mid-November. It remains to be seen if they're able to recapture interest and whether public perception changes again.
  5. To be perfectly clear, the one "dissenting" professor expressed concern that the process needed to be "watertight", that there needed to be a longer time for the investigation and for the people who were directly involved to testify. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to allow that. Indeed, the President suggested that the Impeachment Investigation and Trial proceed as soon as possible, something that puts him at odds with the Congressional Republicans. Which do you believe should be followed, the Professor and his Republican colleagues or the President? Do you agree with the Professor that those issued a subpoena should testify before this inquiry stage is completed? Lastly, I have to ask "is that the new standard you'd suggest be followed from now on?" Because, if so, then when any President is investigated, they have the right to completely ignore the investigation and legal subpoenas to get the involved parties to testify, then you can close the case and be seen as "innocent" because of the lack of direct testimony to those party to the events? Remember, there will be other presidents whom you don't like so well. Do you wish to give them this same blank cheque to do whatever they want without oversight?
  6. So are distinguished public civil servants whose sworn testimony directly implicates Trump not evidence? If this standard were applied to all criminal cases, there would be only stupid people in jail because the only way to get convicted would be to be caught on tape saying they done it. This is obviously not the case in any criminal inquiry, you build up evidence through actions/non-actions, communications between involved parties, understanding of those involved, the sequence of events, etc. As otherwise noted, the reason there is no direct evidence of Trump saying or doing anything is that they've chosen to ignore the legal subpoenas that compel them to testify. Why won't they testify if there's nothing they've done wrong? Why are they breaking the law by not testifying? What is it they're covering up? Actually, we already know from Ambassador Sondland and numerous others. We just need confirmation to wrap this up. So get to Capitol Hill and demonstrate your innocence!
  7. No need to wonder - it already happened to Bill Clinton, and the Republican-controlled House spent most of Obama's 2nd term investigating Benghazi in an attempt to get Hillary. After much more time and money spent than on this impeachment, they provided something very useful - the definition of a "nothingburger". No charges for anyone, nada. Contrast that with this investigation. Several of the President's inner circle indicted, some already in jail, others likely to follow. The only thing Republicans have to rest on is "no direct testimony", something that was ensured through the President's obstruction of justice when he ordered everyone to disobey legal subpoenas. Even the best alibi you can come up with is in itself an impeachable offense.
  8. Care to follow up on my rebuttal of how NASA measures temperatures from earlier times or is that too inconvenient?
  9. "He admits he should "lay off the booze" and claims he has made "contributions to science and technology" as an amateur scientist." Okay, so which of the Climate Change Deniers are you and which spurious nonsense did you use to debunk the "myth" of the global science community?
  10. Well then, Quod Erat Demonstratum! What a brilliant rebuttal of the decades of work of thousands of ignorant scientists who somehow missed the obvious error that there had been no science and no measurement for millions of years, therefore we don't know anything whatsoever about it! Oh, except for this... https://www.giss.nasa.gov/esearch/briefs/schmidt_01/ Those clever scientists! Anyway, could have been worse, you may have actually believed the planet to be 5,000 years old...
  11. So you don't believe that Presidents or Congress are required to follow the law or the constitution? You don't understand that what Trump has been proven to have done is clearly use of his office for personal political gain? You don't understand the clearly spoken words of insiders who were directed to ensure the Ukrainians launched the fraudulent investigation in return for freeing of $400 Million of military aid they desperately needed to thwart Russian aggression in the Crimea? Such as Trump's personally appointed and directed Ambassador to the EU who stated in English "I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said. Or are you going to try to parse that as meaning "something else"? The White House and GOP case against the Impeachment has shifted from "no quid pro quo" to "doesn't matter if it was" to "WHAT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND CROWDSTRIKE", two completely and fully debunked conspiracy theories. So, to be clear, you don't believe the sworn testimony under oath of a range of highly respected non-partisan civil service professionals and Trump appointees who all confirmed the above. You do believe the ones who cast doubt on the quid pro quo (until it was proven to be true), then built a case that there was nothing illegal if there were a quid pro quo (until it was demonstrated that this is a clearer constitutional violation than anything Nixon did) and are now reduced to spouting disproven conspiracy theories propagated by Vladimir Putin, who always has the US best interests at heart. Don't see anything wrong with your logic there? Oh, one last thing - the reason there has been no testimony from those who directly heard Trump say anything directly is that the White House has forbidden anyone from testifying, in defiance of legally compelling subpeonas from Congress. Note that no criminal has ever been set free because they had overwhelming evidence from others of a criminal action but that nobody had clearly recorded them saying that they done it.
×
×
  • Create New...