Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

[WalkingOrders]

7 hours ago, candide said:

abuse of power

A vague and meaningless term that has been said about President's since the beginning of the Republic, each time with a rebuttal, or a slew of them. Impeachment is a political process designed to only be successful if there is bi-partisan support. The framers of the Constitution of the United States made it that way on purpose. It prevents the President from being removed unless a portion of the other party agrees. It would have happened if Nixon did not resign most likely. It's not going to happen here. The Democrats themselves seem confused. This will never clear the Senate. It has been a waste of time. 

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A vague and meaningless term that has been said about President's since the beginning of the Republic, each time with a rebuttal, or a slew of them. Impeachment is a political process designed to only be successful if there is bi-partisan support. The framers of the Constitution of the United States made it that way on purpose. It prevents the President from being removed unless a portion of the other party agrees. It would have happened if Nixon did not resign most likely. It's not going to happen here. The Democrats themselves seem confused. This will never clear the Senate. It has been a waste of time. 

The Clinton Legacy: Impeachment Hurts the President

The 1998 trial damaged Democrats more than Republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/opinion/impeachment-clinton.html

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Asking for that favor in return for getting the 400 million.

I listened very carefully. I never heard one person say they had first hand information of that. That they heard the President say those words. But let's get a few things straight. A President can be right, wrong,  ignorant of facts, or any combination of those three. And yet not be guilty of breaking the law. Let's assume that the President didn't ask for anything at all, let's assume he DEMANDED an investigation before releasing those funds. Now you have to clear some additional legal hurdles. Was the President making this demand out of seeking to enrich himself? In this case to favor his own campaign for the Presidency? OR was the President acting on behalf of the United States of America in his capacity as chief executive to not allow corruption to exist in the foreign policy of the United States? There are laws on the book that that had to clear funds of corruption before they could be released, in fact the the US Department of Defense had done just that, but does that prevent the President from stopping such funds if he discovers a reason to believe that a crime has been commited or that corruption has taken place? Lot's of people making claims here as to what the law is. So you may find yourself siding against the President on these issues, but who are you? And for that matter who am I? Someone, or rather some body, will have to determine if the President was indeed acting out of self, or acting out of a desire to stop corruption, and whether or not that was legal or not. That will be the Senate of the United States of America, precided over by the Supreme Court of the United States. These are questions without cut and dry answers. Both sides are telling you they are. Now the side opposing the President, for example will tell you this has absolutely nothing to do with Biden and Son, nothing to do with a DNC operative working in Ukraine. They will tell you that it has nothing to do with the President attempting to act in the best interest of the United states. They did their best to keep such matters out of the impeachment hearings so far. But in the Senate, all of this comes out and far more. IN the end, if the Senate does not convict, a side will continue to claim that the Senate made the wrong decision, but the Constitution of the United States is very clear it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate. Right now, the Democrats know that they do NOT have the votes. They also know there is NO CHANCE they will get the votes. That is just the truth.

 

You have been witnessing an impeachment attempt against the President of the United States that has been taking place from before he even took office. Those facts are also going to be put forward in any impeachment that makes it to the Senate.

[WalkingOrders]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The Clinton Legacy: Impeachment Hurts the President

The 1998 trial damaged Democrats more than Republicans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/opinion/impeachment-clinton.html

I am not sure why you bother to quote opinion pieces out of the NY Times. You aren't getting enough opinion?

[WalkingOrders]

8 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

I doubt that many here expect a conviction at the Senate , but you know that anyway.

Its the perception of swing voters that matters and their opinion is running just one way at the moment.

Are you really looking positively on any of these Democrat candidates running for President as having a shot to beat Donald J. Trump? Which one do you favour as having a shot?

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I am not sure why you bother to quote opinion pieces out of the NY Times. You aren't getting enough opinion?

Because it's an informed opinion backed by facts. Not like some wild spoutings based on nonsense like the crowdstrike conspiracy.

[AussieBob18]

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote a five-page letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Sunday, rejecting participation in what Cipollone called a “baseless and highly partisan” impeachment inquiry.  Here are some selected highlights from that letter - these clearly sum up the facts:

 

"Although your letter attempts to invoke precedent from the Clinton impeachment inquiry, you have completely ignored not only the process followed then, but all other historical precedent. For example, when the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two­ and-a-half weeks’ notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the President’s attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the President no scheduling input, no meaningful information, and so little time to prepare that you have effeetively denied the Administration a fair opportunity to participate.

…

Past inquiries … did not authorize one set of committees to conduct two rounds of hearings with witnesses (one round in secret and another in public) while prohibiting the President from any opportunity to participate. Nor did these past inquiries eontinue to deny those rights to the President even in a third round of hearings before yet another committee, the Judiciary Committee. Inother impeachment proceedings, the President’s counsel was not excluded from the hearings that took testimony from fact witnesses, nor was the President denied the right of cross examination during those hearings.

…

In both of those proceedings, the minority party had co-equal subpoena authority. Here, by contrast, the ranking member of this Committee cannot force a vote on subpoenas that you choose to issue, but you can force committee votes on the ranking member’s subpoenas.

....

The President was not allowed to present evidence, to call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses, or even to see transcripts until weeks after testimony had been taken, and he was allowed absolutely no participation in the public hearings that followed. Further, witness requests made by Republicans were denied. In addition, certain questioning of the witnesses who did testify was censored by Democrats."

 

End of story - it is a partisan fake impeachment and it is going to hurt the Democrats for decades.  In both past Impeachment proceedings (Nixon and Clinton) there was bi-partisan support and a clear and fair process was followed.  Nixon did the right thing when it became clear he was likely to be found guilty, but Clinton refused to resign because he did not consider his offences to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" - which quite frankly they were not in the true sense of the meaning of those words.  Bonking a few interns is cleartly not, and lying about it to Congress, which is what he was impeached for, is IMO not that serious either.   

 

The Dems have been committed to removing Trump since he was elected and the American People know that (both sides). The Dems have become so obsessed about doing it, despite the Mueller Report and all the other Investigations into Trump, so they have jumped on a highly dubious claim of 'bribery' and have used that as the basis to start an impeachment process that is both unfair and unclear (eg. who is the whistle blower - how and what did they hear) - and the American people know that too.  The fact is that if this is successful, this means all future POTUS whose Party does not control the House will be subjected to impeachment.  There has not been one POTUS who has not made any bad decisions - how about Obama sending cash to Iran - the GOP could have also started an impeachment 'trial' based on that alone.  How about 'you will be able to keep your Doctor'.  What the Dems are doing is making the extremely important issue of impeachment of a POTUS into a political tool - able to be used by both Parties in the future for the smallest of grievances.  What the Dems did to Brett Kavanaugh, and both Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas before him, is totally disgraceful and they are going to be punished for their truly 'ugly politics' - Reagan's great 2nd term win will probably be surpassed by Trump.  They Dems impeachment will fail and they will be severly punished by the American People in 2020. 

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote a five-page letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Sunday, rejecting participation in what Cipollone called a “baseless and highly partisan” impeachment inquiry.  Here are some selected highlights from that letter - these clearly sum up the facts:

 

"Although your letter attempts to invoke precedent from the Clinton impeachment inquiry, you have completely ignored not only the process followed then, but all other historical precedent. For example, when the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two­ and-a-half weeks’ notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the President’s attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the President no scheduling input, no meaningful information, and so little time to prepare that you have effeetively denied the Administration a fair opportunity to participate.

…

Past inquiries … did not authorize one set of committees to conduct two rounds of hearings with witnesses (one round in secret and another in public) while prohibiting the President from any opportunity to participate. Nor did these past inquiries eontinue to deny those rights to the President even in a third round of hearings before yet another committee, the Judiciary Committee. Inother impeachment proceedings, the President’s counsel was not excluded from the hearings that took testimony from fact witnesses, nor was the President denied the right of cross examination during those hearings.

…

In both of those proceedings, the minority party had co-equal subpoena authority. Here, by contrast, the ranking member of this Committee cannot force a vote on subpoenas that you choose to issue, but you can force committee votes on the ranking member’s subpoenas.

....

The President was not allowed to present evidence, to call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses, or even to see transcripts until weeks after testimony had been taken, and he was allowed absolutely no participation in the public hearings that followed. Further, witness requests made by Republicans were denied. In addition, certain questioning of the witnesses who did testify was censored by Democrats."

 

End of story - it is a partisan fake impeachment and it is going to hurt the Democrats for decades.  In both past Impeachment proceedings (Nixon and Clinton) there was bi-partisan support and a clear and fair process was followed.  Nixon did the right thing when it became clear he was likely to be found guilty, but Clinton refused to resign because he did not consider his offences to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" - which quite frankly they were not in the true sense of the meaning of those words.  Bonking a few interns is cleartly not, and lying about it to Congress, which is what he was impeached for, is IMO not that serious either.   

 

The Dems have been committed to removing Trump since he was elected and the American People know that (both sides). The Dems have become so obsessed about doing it, despite the Mueller Report and all the other Investigations into Trump, so they have jumped on a highly dubious claim of 'bribery' and have used that as the basis to start an impeachment process that is both unfair and unclear (eg. who is the whistle blower - how and what did they hear) - and the American people know that too.  The fact is that if this is successful, this means all future POTUS whose Party does not control the House will be subjected to impeachment.  There has not been one POTUS who has not made any bad decisions - how about Obama sending cash to Iran - the GOP could have also started an impeachment 'trial' based on that alone.  How about 'you will be able to keep your Doctor'.  What the Dems are doing is making the extremely important issue of impeachment of a POTUS into a political tool - able to be used by both Parties in the future for the smallest of grievances.  What the Dems did to Brett Kavanaugh, and both Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas before him, is totally disgraceful and they are going to be punished for their truly 'ugly politics' - Reagan's great 2nd term win will probably be surpassed by Trump.  They Dems impeachment will fail and they will be severly punished by the American People in 2020. 

 

"Reagan's great 2nd term win will probably be surpassed by Trump.  They Dems impeachment will fail and they will be severly punished by the American People in 2020."

 

Another visitor from the future. Don't they teach people from the year 2300 to count anymore?Your citation  has more than 3 sentences in violation of the forum rules. You might want to try using links in the future.

[Becker]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I listened very carefully. I never heard one person say they had first hand information of that. That they heard the President say those words. But let's get a few things straight. A President can be right, wrong,  ignorant of facts, or any combination of those three. And yet not be guilty of breaking the law. Let's assume that the President didn't ask for anything at all, let's assume he DEMANDED an investigation before releasing those funds. Now you have to clear some additional legal hurdles. Was the President making this demand out of seeking to enrich himself? In this case to favor his own campaign for the Presidency? OR was the President acting on behalf of the United States of America in his capacity as chief executive to not allow corruption to exist in the foreign policy of the United States? There are laws on the book that that had to clear funds of corruption before they could be released, in fact the the US Department of Defense had done just that, but does that prevent the President from stopping such funds if he discovers a reason to believe that a crime has been commited or that corruption has taken place? Lot's of people making claims here as to what the law is. So you may find yourself siding against the President on these issues, but who are you? And for that matter who am I? Someone, or rather some body, will have to determine if the President was indeed acting out of self, or acting out of a desire to stop corruption, and whether or not that was legal or not. That will be the Senate of the United States of America, precided over by the Supreme Court of the United States. These are questions without cut and dry answers. Both sides are telling you they are. Now the side opposing the President, for example will tell you this has absolutely nothing to do with Biden and Son, nothing to do with a DNC operative working in Ukraine. They will tell you that it has nothing to do with the President attempting to act in the best interest of the United states. They did their best to keep such matters out of the impeachment hearings so far. But in the Senate, all of this comes out and far more. IN the end, if the Senate does not convict, a side will continue to claim that the Senate made the wrong decision, but the Constitution of the United States is very clear it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate. Right now, the Democrats know that they do NOT have the votes. They also know there is NO CHANCE they will get the votes. That is just the truth.

 

You have been witnessing an impeachment attempt against the President of the United States that has been taking place from before he even took office. Those facts are also going to be put forward in any impeachment that makes it to the Senate.

And here's the opinion of someone' who knows a whole lot more than you about the whole matter:

 

"Ahead of this week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Trump impeachment inquiry, Napolitano said that in his view, the president’s actions with regards to Ukraine were “clearly impeachable, because it involves two potential crimes,” namely bribery and campaign finance violations. 

They are free to say that’s not an impeachable offense,” he argued, “but they are not free to say it didn’t happen, because the evidence that it happened is overwhelming.” 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-andrew-napolitano-235348728.html

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

They Dems impeachment will fail and they will be severly punished by the American People in 2020.

Well that sums things up clear as a bell. ????

[WalkingOrders]

36 minutes ago, Becker said:

 

"Ahead of this week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Trump impeachment inquiry, Napolitano said that in his view, the president’s actions with regards to Ukraine were “clearly impeachable, because it involves two potential crimes,” namely bribery and campaign finance violations. 

They are free to say that’s not an impeachable offense,” he argued, “but they are not free to say it didn’t happen, because the evidence that it happened is overwhelming.” 

Earlier I posted a full video clip of Napolitano with regard to these statements. What "clearly impeachable" means, and what is really going on. You might want to review that clip. Especially the part where he discusses the morality of the Democrat actions with regard to this President.

[WalkingOrders]

39 minutes ago, Becker said:

They are free to say that’s not an impeachable offense,” he argued, “but they are not free to say it didn’t happen, because the evidence that it happened is overwhelming.” 

Bring it to the United States Senate. Let's see if they have the balls. 

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

crowdstrike conspiracy.

I spoke clearly on my opinion of the crowdstrike conspiracy. I said I had know knowledge of the reasons for believing the server was in Ukraine, but I do have questions regarding why the FBI if the United States would NOT have posession of that server, and why they would not have been the ones to first hand inspect it rather then outsource that to a 3rd party. Regardless of what President would ever have been in power, or what Secretary of State, I believe those are reasonable questions to ask in that circumstance or any similiar one that should ever arise in the future.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Earlier I posted a full video clip of Napolitano with regard to these statements. What "clearly impeachable" means, and what is really going on. You might want to review that clip. Especially the part where he discusses the morality of the Democrat actions with regard to this President.

You want to discuss Trump and morality? How odd.

 

Btw, did you listen carefully when mulvaney admitted the bribery?

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Bring it to the United States Senate. Let's see if they have the balls. 

Of course the senate dont have the balls. But thats no reason for congress not to do its job.

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Btw, did you listen carefully when mulvaney admitted the bribery?

Bribery? You think so? Well, if the Democrats can get that far, it will go to the Senate. We have to wait and see if you are correct. I think not. How certain are you?

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Of course the senate dont have the balls. But thats no reason for congress not to do its job.

Meaning if the house has the balls to take it to the Senate. Let's see if it gets as far as the US Senate. I am not certain at this point that it will, but it's possible. However the Senate will not convict. Trump will not be removed from office, and at this point he is virtually guaranteed re-election. Is there a Democrat candidate you favour? 

[Becker]

12 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Earlier I posted a full video clip of Napolitano with regard to these statements. What "clearly impeachable" means, and what is really going on. You might want to review that clip. Especially the part where he discusses the morality of the Democrat actions with regard to this President.

Yeah, about that...

 

Link: Judge Napolitano Schools ‘Fox & Friends’ on Impeachment: Schiff Just ‘Following the Rules’ Written by GOP

[WalkingOrders]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You want to discuss Trump and morality? How odd.

I think what I said was that Napolitano discussed the morality of the Democrat party in regard to the continuous attempt to have Trump impeached. And then you came back and said that I want to have the discussion. How odd.

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Are you really looking positively on any of these Democrat candidates running for President as having a shot to beat Donald J. Trump?

You sound like a hardcore Trump supporter.  What's Trump's new slogan for 2020?  Keep America Great?  Got it.

 

https://www.keepamericagreat.com/

[Rimmer]

Some troll posts and replies removed

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

You sound like a hardcore Trump supporter.  What's Trump's new slogan for 2020?  Keep America Great?  Got it.

Was that your response to my question? Less then a hardcore Trump supporter - I am not a supporter of the Neo-con/Neo-liberal consensus that has driven US foreign and domestic policy. One which resulted in the so called two-headed coin that persisted for years. Donald Trump attempted to push back against the US policy establishment. I am alarmed by an intrinched bureaucracy supported by the Democrat party, and what appears to be a media arm, marching all lock step to oppose the policy of an elected administration. One that frames themselves as revolutionaries and opposes the constitution itself. One that has accused the President of heinous crimes. They have their day in court if they can get their process to the Senate. I doubt they will and most certainly the President will not be removed. THE END

[Berkshire]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Was that your response to my question? Less then a hardcore Trump supporter - I am not a supporter of the Neo-con/Neo-liberal consensus that has driven US foreign and domestic policy. One which resulted in the so called two-headed coin that persisted for years. Donald Trump attempted to push back against the US policy establishment. I am alarmed by an intrinched bureaucracy supported by the Democrat party, and what appears to be a media arm, marching all lock step to oppose the policy of an elected administration. One that frames themselves as revolutionaries and opposes the constitution itself. One that has accused the President of heinous crimes. They have their day in court if they can get their process to the Senate. I doubt they will and most certainly the President will not be removed. THE END

Geez man, what senseless drivel.  Let's just keep it simple.  Trump is a corrupt, lying conman.  The sooner he leaves, the better America will be for it.   

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

One that has accused the President of heinous crimes. They have their day in court if they can get their process to the Senate. I doubt they will and most certainly the President will not be removed. THE END

"One that has accused the President of heinous crimes. "

Well duh, that's because he has committed heinous crimes. Using the power of the office of the president for own corrupt purposes is heinous, plain and simple.

 

"THE END"

You know, you're not really required to write that to indicate you've completed your post as it's not a telex you're sending.

[WalkingOrders]

15 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Geez man, what senseless drivel.  Let's just keep it simple.  Trump is a corrupt, lying conman.  The sooner he leaves, the better America will be for it.   

He's not going anywhere. Stop crying.

[AussieBob18]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"Reagan's great 2nd term win will probably be surpassed by Trump.  They Dems impeachment will fail and they will be severly punished by the American People in 2020."

 

Another visitor from the future. Don't they teach people from the year 2300 to count anymore?Your citation  has more than 3 sentences in violation of the forum rules. You might want to try using links in the future.

Yep - and I am from the past too - but unlike Jingthing and few others in 2016 (dont rememebr you) and will not be wrong about the 2020 election.  Thanks for the edit advice.

[AussieBob18]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

And here's the opinion of someone' who knows a whole lot more than you about the whole matter:

 

"Ahead of this week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Trump impeachment inquiry, Napolitano said that in his view, the president’s actions with regards to Ukraine were “clearly impeachable, because it involves two potential crimes,” namely bribery and campaign finance violations. They are free to say that’s not an impeachable offense,” he argued, “but they are not free to say it didn’t happen, because the evidence that it happened is overwhelming.” 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-andrew-napolitano-235348728.html

People do not have to agree with my opinion - I am a conservative.  It is only the liberals that demand everyone agree with their opinions.  As Reagan said - if communism ever gets to America it will come disguised as liberalism. By the way I agree with most of Reagan's opinions - and most were right too. 

 

PS - I believe Walklingorders has shown you to be wrong - but that is only my opinion ????

 

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Yep - and I am from the past too - but unlike Jingthing and few others in 2016 (dont rememebr you) and will not be wrong about the 2020 election.  Thanks for the edit advice.

I believe I remember your predictions about the 2018 midterms.

[WalkingOrders]

59 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Republican lawmakers unmuzzled in rebuking Trump on Syria

Do you know something about Syria? Are you digging up an article to post to pretend you know something about the situation in Syria? Did you read my post and try to pull something out of the internet somewhere to claim some sort of knowledge? Are you making a point regarding what you think would be best for United States foreign policy in Syria, I mean regardless of what administration is in power? You have some intelligence to share? A position on Kurds, or Turks or the various factions fighting in the region? The article you posted is from Oct 17th, and based upon this article what position is it that you are trying to articulate to the people reading this board regarding Syria?

[AussieBob18]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I believe I remember your predictions about the 2018 midterms.

Yeh - 1 for 2 on that one ????  Dems somehow got the House - but they wont have it for long.

Midterms laways go against the incumbant Party - and they still did in 2018 - wont forget that.

 

Have you seen the latest? (twitter)

“The Democrats don’t have any evidence, but they are still going to do it anyway. That’s the sham that’s going on here.”  
@jasoninthehouse  Jason Chaffetz

Or this one?

"Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with European publications including Germany's Der Spiegel magazine: 'I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms: you give me this, I give you that.' "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7746093/Ukraines-President-Zelensky-renews-denial-quid-pro-quo-Donald-Trump-military-aid.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus&__twitter_impression=true