Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

I think he missed today’s deadline and I’m not in the least surprised he has absolutely no defense so he will smear deflect and try play the victim typical trump 

You mean like the phone call in which Trump denied any quid pro quo? The phone call of which there is no record at the White House switchboard? Not that the alleged denial was ever worth much. Especia

Posted Images

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by bristolboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by Becker
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...