Page 13 of 15

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:49 pm
by ltbewr
It appears that Speaker Pelosi will formally deliver the articles of impeachment next week with appointment of the managers (like prosecutors) with them.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/politics ... index.html

I am not surprised and expected it by next week so the trial could be held and concluded before the big 1st Presidential primary caucus and elections in February so not to prevent Democratic party Senators (4) from being able to campaign during the trial they must attend. Likely the trial will start on Jan. 21st/22nd (Tues/Wed - Monday the 20th is Martin Luther King Federal holiday). It also means is as expected no or few witnesses, the trial and vote would be over with by the State of the Union Speech by Pres. Trump on Feb. 4th. The Speaker knows that holding back much longer was going to be negative to the party, might as well get it over with and use their efforts to bash Trump in the campaign in fall.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:54 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... on-results

The REPUBLICAN led investigations of Hillary found nothing. Again.

Stop deflecting. McConnell is in charge of the Senate. The Senate, according to our Constitution (which Republicans keep saying they love and respect) says the actual trial must be held in the Senate. A trial. Evidence, witnesses, subpoenas, the whole thing. Yes, McConnell and Graham have both said they will consult with the White House, the accused.

This is like the jury foreman and alternate foreman telling the judge of the Manson trial they will consult with Manson.

Republicans wanted witnesses and claimed (falsely) they were not allowed to question those under oath during the committee hearings. Here is their chance. If the Senate were to hold an actual and real trial, Republicans would be able to call witnesses and question those under oath.


So would Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the senators who already said Trump was guilty even BEFORE the house passed the impeachment articles, should they recuse too?

This is a political exercise, lets be honest, the Democrats failed to actually move the needle here with actual evidence because of their rush to impeach was evident. No subpoenas because they feared the delay till Election season was coming to haunt them, and two very weak articles of impeachment, their vagueness is amazing. Good luck with that. The electorate looks to be the same as before impeachment, in fact I would dare say that Trump supporters are more energized than ever. Total mistake on Pelosi and now she wants to command the Senate, it appears she has surrendered and will transmit them by next week. Lets waive the white flag, of course after Democratic senators just wanted to get on with it long ago, she thought she had leverage. What a waste!

This will tremendously backfire on them by November this year!


So I see VT has a new profile. Lots of misleading info in this post.

All those Senators accused Trump of impropriety because they are smart enough to recognize it. Unlike most of the knuckle-draggers on the GOP side.
The only thing political about it is the fact that the GOP depends on too much money to actually find fault with one of their own. They are under the influence of the money handlers and Right wing Media that can find any and every unsubstantiated lie to incriminate Barack ,Biden, or Hillary. However when an actual whistle-blower lays down a credible report, they all stick their head under their desks, and cry fake.

The GOP will find a painful re-election campaign this year if they continue to pray for election funding. The Ad runs are going to be humiliating for them.


Don't know who is VT... I am new... really.

If the evidence was weak, as we all know it was, why rush to vote on impeachment articles? why not subpoena for more witnesses? More evidence. They could have, but the courts would have delayed the Democratic game plan. Impeach on only 3 months worth of hearings and investigation, really? is that what's going to happen from now on?

The US is not the UK, the president even if you don't like can't be beholden to the congress, that's why we have separation of powers, that's why it will die in the senate, because this case is so weak even moderate GOP senators won't vote on it. None voted in the house. So moving forward this precedent is that every president will be impeached because we don't like him. This is un-American and not what the framers wanted, when they saw the UK constitution.

Pelosi's stupidity was fully on display when she said that they needed to urgently impeach Trump, but sat on the articles for weeks. Come on! they can do better than this!

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:55 pm
by casinterest
ltbewr wrote:
It appears that Speaker Pelosi will formally deliver the articles of impeachment next week with appointment of the managers (like prosecutors) with them.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/10/politics ... index.html

I am not surprised and expected it by next week so the trial could be held and concluded before the big 1st Presidential primary caucus and elections in February so not to prevent Democratic party Senators (4) from being able to campaign during the trial they must attend. Likely the trial will start on Jan. 21st/22nd (Tues/Wed - Monday the 20th is Martin Luther King Federal holiday). It also means is as expected no or few witnesses, the trial and vote would be over with by the State of the Union Speech by Pres. Trump on Feb. 4th. The Speaker knows that holding back much longer was going to be negative to the party, might as well get it over with and use their efforts to bash Trump in the campaign in fall.


At the end of the day, the GOP is beholden to their donors, and their integrity is shot. The Democrats are going to be thumping them with the Lock her up rallies that have been proven to be a lie, and then they are going to thump them over the head with the emails that show that Donald knew about withholding aide based on his abuse of powers.
Then all the little sycophants in the GOP are going to get hammered on their support for Trump and his lies, racism, misogyny, destruction of international relations, and trade.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:08 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
If the evidence was weak, as we all know it was, why rush to vote on impeachment articles? why not subpoena for more witnesses? More evidence. They could have, but the courts would have delayed the Democratic game plan. Impeach on only 3 months worth of hearings and investigation, really? is that what's going to happen from now on?


The evidence was obstructed by Trump and the White House Administration. It was hoped that the Senate would lead a reasonable investigation and get these documents, but since they are run by dishonorable GOP members, this will not be done.

We will now have to wait for all the court orders and freedom of information acts to slowly ( through the rest of the year) to reveal some of the conversations that have been covered up by the White House. These will be damaging enough when the time comes and the GOP will be exposed as the frauds they all are in not going after this information from the start. There used to be a time when country came before party, but with the lack of integrity in the GOP currently, that is no longer the case. The Rule of Law is abandoned for money.

AirWorthy99 wrote:
The US is not the UK, the president even if you don't like can't be beholden to the congress, that's why we have separation of powers, that's why it will die in the senate, because this case is so weak even moderate GOP senators won't vote on it. None voted in the house. So moving forward this precedent is that every president will be impeached because we don't like him. This is un-American.


This is the US, and the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has oversight on the Executive Branches. That is why it has the power of impeachment. Please go read the constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Section 3
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


The only thing Un-American is your lack of understanding of the Constitution.

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Pelosi's stupidity was fully on display when she said that they needed to urgently impeach Trump, but sat on the articles for weeks. Come on! they can do better than this!


They sat on the articles because McConnell has already abandoned his responsibilities to the constitution by colluding with the President.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:13 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
If the evidence was weak, as we all know it was, why rush to vote on impeachment articles? why not subpoena for more witnesses? More evidence. They could have, but the courts would have delayed the Democratic game plan. Impeach on only 3 months worth of hearings and investigation, really? is that what's going to happen from now on?


The evidence was obstructed by Trump and the White House Administration. It was hoped that the Senate would lead a reasonable investigation and get these documents, but since they are run by dishonorable GOP members, this will not be done.

We will now have to wait for all the court orders and freedom of information acts to slowly ( through the rest of the year) to reveal some of the conversations that have been covered up by the White House. These will be damaging enough when the time comes and the GOP will be exposed as the frauds they all are in not going after this information from the start. There used to be a time when country came before party, but with the lack of integrity in the GOP currently, that is no longer the case. The Rule of Law is abandoned for money.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

They could have waited on the courts to get the evidence and the witnesses. But they did not. Impeaching for obstructing Congress? really, impeach all presidents for that. Abuse of power? all presidents you can also impeach.

The US is not the UK, the president even if you don't like can't be beholden to the congress, that's why we have separation of powers, that's why it will die in the senate, because this case is so weak even moderate GOP senators won't vote on it. None voted in the house. So moving forward this precedent is that every president will be impeached because we don't like him. This is un-American.


This is the US, and the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has oversight on the Executive Branches. That is why it has the power of impeachment. Please go read the constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Section 3
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


The only thing Un-American is your lack of understanding of the Constitution.

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Pelosi's stupidity was fully on display when she said that they needed to urgently impeach Trump, but sat on the articles for weeks. Come on! they can do better than this!


They sat on the articles because McConnell has already abandoned his responsibilities to the constitution by colluding with the President.


Not denying this in our constitution. The reason Trump will be acquitted will be because of the constitution and its dislike of having the President beholden to the congress, because it will eventually lack the votes in the senate. Why would Pelosi push this knowing that in the senate it will die?

Impeaching the president along party lines, something never ever done is Un-American. Impeaching the president just because you don't like him is Un-American. Impeaching when in months there will be an election where the people could vote him out, Un American.

This is what's happening with this political unncessary drama. They could have waited for some good evidence and have some GOP votes, but no, this is the most stupid impeachment ever.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:18 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
If the evidence was weak, as we all know it was, why rush to vote on impeachment articles? why not subpoena for more witnesses? More evidence. They could have, but the courts would have delayed the Democratic game plan. Impeach on only 3 months worth of hearings and investigation, really? is that what's going to happen from now on?


The evidence was obstructed by Trump and the White House Administration. It was hoped that the Senate would lead a reasonable investigation and get these documents, but since they are run by dishonorable GOP members, this will not be done.

We will now have to wait for all the court orders and freedom of information acts to slowly ( through the rest of the year) to reveal some of the conversations that have been covered up by the White House. These will be damaging enough when the time comes and the GOP will be exposed as the frauds they all are in not going after this information from the start. There used to be a time when country came before party, but with the lack of integrity in the GOP currently, that is no longer the case. The Rule of Law is abandoned for money.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

They could have waited on the courts to get the evidence and the witnesses. But they did not. Impeaching for obstructing Congress? really, impeach all presidents for that. Abuse of power? all presidents you can also impeach.

The US is not the UK, the president even if you don't like can't be beholden to the congress, that's why we have separation of powers, that's why it will die in the senate, because this case is so weak even moderate GOP senators won't vote on it. None voted in the house. So moving forward this precedent is that every president will be impeached because we don't like him. This is un-American.


This is the US, and the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has oversight on the Executive Branches. That is why it has the power of impeachment. Please go read the constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."


Section 3
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


The only thing Un-American is your lack of understanding of the Constitution.

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Pelosi's stupidity was fully on display when she said that they needed to urgently impeach Trump, but sat on the articles for weeks. Come on! they can do better than this!


They sat on the articles because McConnell has already abandoned his responsibilities to the constitution by colluding with the President.


Not denying this in our constitution. The reason Trump will be acquitted will be because of the constitution and its dislike of having the President beholden to the congress, because it will eventually lack the votes in the senate. Why would Pelosi push this knowing that in the senate it will die?

Impeaching the president along party lines, something never ever done is Un-American. Impeaching the president just because you don't like him is Un-American. Impeaching when in months there will be an election where the people could vote him out, Un American.

This is what's happening with this political unncessary drama. They could have waited for some good evidence and have some GOP votes, but no, this is the most stupid impeachment ever.


He was impeached because he violated the Oath of office. What is Un American are the partisans of the GOP that are giving him a pass for it. There is plenty of good evidence if the GOP had any members with a spine left.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:22 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The evidence was obstructed by Trump and the White House Administration. It was hoped that the Senate would lead a reasonable investigation and get these documents, but since they are run by dishonorable GOP members, this will not be done.

We will now have to wait for all the court orders and freedom of information acts to slowly ( through the rest of the year) to reveal some of the conversations that have been covered up by the White House. These will be damaging enough when the time comes and the GOP will be exposed as the frauds they all are in not going after this information from the start. There used to be a time when country came before party, but with the lack of integrity in the GOP currently, that is no longer the case. The Rule of Law is abandoned for money.



This is the US, and the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has oversight on the Executive Branches. That is why it has the power of impeachment. Please go read the constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Section 2:



Section 3


The only thing Un-American is your lack of understanding of the Constitution.



They sat on the articles because McConnell has already abandoned his responsibilities to the constitution by colluding with the President.


Not denying this in our constitution. The reason Trump will be acquitted will be because of the constitution and its dislike of having the President beholden to the congress, because it will eventually lack the votes in the senate. Why would Pelosi push this knowing that in the senate it will die?

Impeaching the president along party lines, something never ever done is Un-American. Impeaching the president just because you don't like him is Un-American. Impeaching when in months there will be an election where the people could vote him out, Un American.

This is what's happening with this political unncessary drama. They could have waited for some good evidence and have some GOP votes, but no, this is the most stupid impeachment ever.


He was impeached because he violated the Oath of office. What is Un American are the partisans of the GOP that are giving him a pass for it. There is plenty of good evidence if the GOP had any members with a spine left.


What part of the oath of office exactly?

Because he 'obstructed congress'? you could have 44 presidents impeached for that.

Because he 'abused his power' So vague you could also have 44 presidents impeached for that.

No evidence of any criminal activity, nothing. We could hate Trump, want him out, but be fair and provide strong persuasive evidence to take him out and ignore the millions that voted for him.

Instead they decided to rush this, and pass it to the Senate so they can use this politically to use it against the incumbent GOP Senators looking for Re-election. That's all. That's the best bet for now the left has.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:22 pm
by casinterest
is there time for another Article of Impeachment ? Or would this be a war crime for Multiple Senators and Trump?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ent-2020-1

President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.


Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:45 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Not denying this in our constitution. The reason Trump will be acquitted will be because of the constitution and its dislike of having the President beholden to the congress, because it will eventually lack the votes in the senate. Why would Pelosi push this knowing that in the senate it will die?

Impeaching the president along party lines, something never ever done is Un-American. Impeaching the president just because you don't like him is Un-American. Impeaching when in months there will be an election where the people could vote him out, Un American.

This is what's happening with this political unncessary drama. They could have waited for some good evidence and have some GOP votes, but no, this is the most stupid impeachment ever.


He was impeached because he violated the Oath of office. What is Un American are the partisans of the GOP that are giving him a pass for it. There is plenty of good evidence if the GOP had any members with a spine left.


What part of the oath of office exactly?

Because he 'obstructed congress'? you could have 44 presidents impeached for that.

Because he 'abused his power' So vague you could also have 44 presidents impeached for that.

No evidence of any criminal activity, nothing. We could hate Trump, want him out, but be fair and provide strong persuasive evidence to take him out and ignore the millions that voted for him.

Instead they decided to rush this, and pass it to the Senate so they can use this politically to use it against the incumbent GOP Senators looking for Re-election. That's all. That's the best bet for now the left has.



Here are the articles so you can actually understand what Obstruction and Abuse of power look like.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... chment.pdf

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:47 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

He was impeached because he violated the Oath of office. What is Un American are the partisans of the GOP that are giving him a pass for it. There is plenty of good evidence if the GOP had any members with a spine left.


What part of the oath of office exactly?

Because he 'obstructed congress'? you could have 44 presidents impeached for that.

Because he 'abused his power' So vague you could also have 44 presidents impeached for that.

No evidence of any criminal activity, nothing. We could hate Trump, want him out, but be fair and provide strong persuasive evidence to take him out and ignore the millions that voted for him.

Instead they decided to rush this, and pass it to the Senate so they can use this politically to use it against the incumbent GOP Senators looking for Re-election. That's all. That's the best bet for now the left has.



Here are the articles so you can actually understand what Obstruction and Abuse of power look like.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... chment.pdf


None of which are actual crimes, but rather Democratic congress made up crimes.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:48 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
is there time for another Article of Impeachment ? Or would this be a war crime for Multiple Senators and Trump?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ent-2020-1

President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.



Really? how many senators were actually doubting on voting in favor of impeachment before he killed the General?

Where there really any GOP senator on the fence?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:56 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
is there time for another Article of Impeachment ? Or would this be a war crime for Multiple Senators and Trump?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ent-2020-1

President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.



Really? how many senators were actually doubting on voting in favor of impeachment before he killed the General?

Where there really any GOP senator on the fence?


There are plenty who will probably lose elections this year,. and the GOP senate.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we ... ulnerable/

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:57 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

What part of the oath of office exactly?

Because he 'obstructed congress'? you could have 44 presidents impeached for that.

Because he 'abused his power' So vague you could also have 44 presidents impeached for that.

No evidence of any criminal activity, nothing. We could hate Trump, want him out, but be fair and provide strong persuasive evidence to take him out and ignore the millions that voted for him.

Instead they decided to rush this, and pass it to the Senate so they can use this politically to use it against the incumbent GOP Senators looking for Re-election. That's all. That's the best bet for now the left has.



Here are the articles so you can actually understand what Obstruction and Abuse of power look like.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... chment.pdf


None of which are actual crimes, but rather Democratic congress made up crimes.


So let's see if the GOP throws a real trial with Witnesses in the senate. If they move to dismiss, then you know that they are afraid of the truth being broadcast.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:08 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Here are the articles so you can actually understand what Obstruction and Abuse of power look like.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... chment.pdf


None of which are actual crimes, but rather Democratic congress made up crimes.


So let's see if the GOP throws a real trial with Witnesses in the senate. If they move to dismiss, then you know that they are afraid of the truth being broadcast.


They had their chance to bring witnesses and evidence in the house. All of the sudden the current evidence is so weak you need to still bring new witnesses. Come on lets be real here. They had their chance. Why do you need more witnesses isn't the current evidence being sent to the trial sufficient for conviction? if not why then send it and vote to impeach?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:15 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

None of which are actual crimes, but rather Democratic congress made up crimes.


So let's see if the GOP throws a real trial with Witnesses in the senate. If they move to dismiss, then you know that they are afraid of the truth being broadcast.


They had their chance to bring witnesses and evidence in the house. All of the sudden the current evidence is so weak you need to still bring new witnesses. Come on lets be real here. They had their chance. Why do you need more witnesses isn't the current evidence being sent to the trial sufficient for conviction? if not why then send it and vote to impeach?


They brought witnesses and evidence to the house. Remember the pedofile protector Jim Jordan ignoring it all, while Devin , on the Russian Payrol, Nunes insulted all of the witnesses?

They need the witnesses that the WHITE HOUSE blocked, because they are obstructing Justice.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:21 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

So let's see if the GOP throws a real trial with Witnesses in the senate. If they move to dismiss, then you know that they are afraid of the truth being broadcast.


They had their chance to bring witnesses and evidence in the house. All of the sudden the current evidence is so weak you need to still bring new witnesses. Come on lets be real here. They had their chance. Why do you need more witnesses isn't the current evidence being sent to the trial sufficient for conviction? if not why then send it and vote to impeach?


They brought witnesses and evidence to the house. Remember the pedofile protector Jim Jordan ignoring it all, while Devin , on the Russian Payrol, Nunes insulted all of the witnesses?

They need the witnesses that the WHITE HOUSE blocked, because they are obstructing Justice.


All of which couldn't identify any high crimes, bribes and misdemeanors.

No smoking gun, nothing tangible on the president. As I said they could have waited, but they rushed it.
Had they any significant and tangible evidence, perhaps you could have had bi-partisan support on this, and make it look a bit more serious.

BTW, they did not Obstruct justice, they charged with 'Obstructing congress' another fake crime. They couldn't get the justice charge because they never went to court with the subpoenas.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:31 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

They had their chance to bring witnesses and evidence in the house. All of the sudden the current evidence is so weak you need to still bring new witnesses. Come on lets be real here. They had their chance. Why do you need more witnesses isn't the current evidence being sent to the trial sufficient for conviction? if not why then send it and vote to impeach?


They brought witnesses and evidence to the house. Remember the pedofile protector Jim Jordan ignoring it all, while Devin , on the Russian Payrol, Nunes insulted all of the witnesses?

They need the witnesses that the WHITE HOUSE blocked, because they are obstructing Justice.


All of which couldn't identify any high crimes, bribes and misdemeanors.

No smoking gun, nothing tangible on the president. As I said they could have waited, but they rushed it.
Had they any significant and tangible evidence, perhaps you could have had bi-partisan support on this, and make it look a bit more serious.

BTW, they did not Obstruct justice, they charged with 'Obstructing congress' another fake crime. They couldn't get the justice charge because they never went to court with the subpoenas.

'
Keep shifting the goal posts, and covering up for the corrupt GOP.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:36 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

They brought witnesses and evidence to the house. Remember the pedofile protector Jim Jordan ignoring it all, while Devin , on the Russian Payrol, Nunes insulted all of the witnesses?

They need the witnesses that the WHITE HOUSE blocked, because they are obstructing Justice.


All of which couldn't identify any high crimes, bribes and misdemeanors.

No smoking gun, nothing tangible on the president. As I said they could have waited, but they rushed it.
Had they any significant and tangible evidence, perhaps you could have had bi-partisan support on this, and make it look a bit more serious.

BTW, they did not Obstruct justice, they charged with 'Obstructing congress' another fake crime. They couldn't get the justice charge because they never went to court with the subpoenas.

'
Keep shifting the goal posts, and covering up for the corrupt GOP.


Well to be fair, they can impeach for anything, they don't need an actual crime.

But for this to have worked it would have been great good deal of evidence and bi-partisan support. That's what made this impeachment a political show more than anything. Plus they lost all credibility since they have been calling for his impeachment since the day he was even elected.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:40 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

All of which couldn't identify any high crimes, bribes and misdemeanors.

No smoking gun, nothing tangible on the president. As I said they could have waited, but they rushed it.
Had they any significant and tangible evidence, perhaps you could have had bi-partisan support on this, and make it look a bit more serious.

BTW, they did not Obstruct justice, they charged with 'Obstructing congress' another fake crime. They couldn't get the justice charge because they never went to court with the subpoenas.

'
Keep shifting the goal posts, and covering up for the corrupt GOP.


Well to be fair, they can impeach for anything, they don't need an actual crime.

But for this to have worked it would have been great good deal of evidence and bi-partisan support. That's what made this impeachment a political show more than anything. Plus they lost all credibility since they have been calling for his impeachment since the day he was even elected.



They called for impeachment, but didn't launch it until there was evidence. The GOP is just to whipped by the liars in Right wing media, and their money bag holders to do with ethical investigation and impeachment finding.

Remember this is the same GOP that impeached Clinton for a blowjob.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:46 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
'
Keep shifting the goal posts, and covering up for the corrupt GOP.


Well to be fair, they can impeach for anything, they don't need an actual crime.

But for this to have worked it would have been great good deal of evidence and bi-partisan support. That's what made this impeachment a political show more than anything. Plus they lost all credibility since they have been calling for his impeachment since the day he was even elected.



They called for impeachment, but didn't launch it until there was evidence. The GOP is just to whipped by the liars in Right wing media, and their money bag holders to do with ethical investigation and impeachment finding.

Remember this is the same GOP that impeached Clinton for a blowjob.


Really for a blowjob? how about perjury a real crime. Or Obstruction of Justice, another real crime. Of which it did receive Bi-Partisan support, compared to know which received nil.

Lets be real here, I know the shoe is on the other foot right now.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:43 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
extender wrote:

Re-read what you wrote. Hillary was in the foreign pockets. Uranium One, anyone? The steel Dossier, who paid for it? Go ahead and tell me how the GoP did it. I know a lot of voters that don't usually vote that are coming out to slap the democrats running for office.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... on-results

The REPUBLICAN led investigations of Hillary found nothing. Again.

Stop deflecting. McConnell is in charge of the Senate. The Senate, according to our Constitution (which Republicans keep saying they love and respect) says the actual trial must be held in the Senate. A trial. Evidence, witnesses, subpoenas, the whole thing. Yes, McConnell and Graham have both said they will consult with the White House, the accused.

This is like the jury foreman and alternate foreman telling the judge of the Manson trial they will consult with Manson.

Republicans wanted witnesses and claimed (falsely) they were not allowed to question those under oath during the committee hearings. Here is their chance. If the Senate were to hold an actual and real trial, Republicans would be able to call witnesses and question those under oath.


So would Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the senators who already said Trump was guilty even BEFORE the house passed the impeachment articles, should they recuse too?

This is a political exercise, lets be honest, the Democrats failed to actually move the needle here with actual evidence because of their rush to impeach was evident. No subpoenas because they feared the delay till Election season was coming to haunt them, and two very weak articles of impeachment, their vagueness is amazing. Good luck with that. The electorate looks to be the same as before impeachment, in fact I would dare say that Trump supporters are more energized than ever. Total mistake on Pelosi and now she wants to command the Senate, it appears she has surrendered and will transmit them by next week. Lets waive the white flag, of course after Democratic senators just wanted to get on with it long ago, she thought she had leverage. What a waste!

This will tremendously backfire on them by November this year!


Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:55 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Well to be fair, they can impeach for anything, they don't need an actual crime.

But for this to have worked it would have been great good deal of evidence and bi-partisan support. That's what made this impeachment a political show more than anything. Plus they lost all credibility since they have been calling for his impeachment since the day he was even elected.



They called for impeachment, but didn't launch it until there was evidence. The GOP is just to whipped by the liars in Right wing media, and their money bag holders to do with ethical investigation and impeachment finding.

Remember this is the same GOP that impeached Clinton for a blowjob.


Really for a blowjob? how about perjury a real crime. Or Obstruction of Justice, another real crime. Of which it did receive Bi-Partisan support, compared to know which received nil.

Lets be real here, I know the shoe is on the other foot right now.


Do you understand how it happened? I think you are playing as loose with the facts as ole VT did.
How about we get Trump to testify like the Bill Clinton did. You think we will come up without perjuring himself?

I know Trump isn't man enough to actually testify to clear himself.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:06 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... on-results

The REPUBLICAN led investigations of Hillary found nothing. Again.

Stop deflecting. McConnell is in charge of the Senate. The Senate, according to our Constitution (which Republicans keep saying they love and respect) says the actual trial must be held in the Senate. A trial. Evidence, witnesses, subpoenas, the whole thing. Yes, McConnell and Graham have both said they will consult with the White House, the accused.

This is like the jury foreman and alternate foreman telling the judge of the Manson trial they will consult with Manson.

Republicans wanted witnesses and claimed (falsely) they were not allowed to question those under oath during the committee hearings. Here is their chance. If the Senate were to hold an actual and real trial, Republicans would be able to call witnesses and question those under oath.


So would Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the senators who already said Trump was guilty even BEFORE the house passed the impeachment articles, should they recuse too?

This is a political exercise, lets be honest, the Democrats failed to actually move the needle here with actual evidence because of their rush to impeach was evident. No subpoenas because they feared the delay till Election season was coming to haunt them, and two very weak articles of impeachment, their vagueness is amazing. Good luck with that. The electorate looks to be the same as before impeachment, in fact I would dare say that Trump supporters are more energized than ever. Total mistake on Pelosi and now she wants to command the Senate, it appears she has surrendered and will transmit them by next week. Lets waive the white flag, of course after Democratic senators just wanted to get on with it long ago, she thought she had leverage. What a waste!

This will tremendously backfire on them by November this year!


Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.


Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:10 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

So would Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the senators who already said Trump was guilty even BEFORE the house passed the impeachment articles, should they recuse too?

This is a political exercise, lets be honest, the Democrats failed to actually move the needle here with actual evidence because of their rush to impeach was evident. No subpoenas because they feared the delay till Election season was coming to haunt them, and two very weak articles of impeachment, their vagueness is amazing. Good luck with that. The electorate looks to be the same as before impeachment, in fact I would dare say that Trump supporters are more energized than ever. Total mistake on Pelosi and now she wants to command the Senate, it appears she has surrendered and will transmit them by next week. Lets waive the white flag, of course after Democratic senators just wanted to get on with it long ago, she thought she had leverage. What a waste!

This will tremendously backfire on them by November this year!


Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.


Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


You forget that this was after the Mueller report showed how Trump and his team of criminals obstructed the Investigation of Russian Collusion. Remember the Mueller repoirt ? The one that has sent Multiple GOP criminals associates of Trump to jail?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:11 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.


Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


You forget that this was after the Mueller report showed how Trump and his team of criminals obstructed the Investigation of Russian Collusion. Remember the Mueller repoirt ? The one that has sent Multiple GOP criminals associates of Trump to jail?


Yes how could we forget, the one that absolved Trump.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:22 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


You forget that this was after the Mueller report showed how Trump and his team of criminals obstructed the Investigation of Russian Collusion. Remember the Mueller repoirt ? The one that has sent Multiple GOP criminals associates of Trump to jail?


Yes how could we forget, the one that absolved Trump.


So now I know you didn't read the report. That is the one that specifically did not absolve Trump in Mueller's own words. It called for further congressional investigations into Items's Mueller was obstructed on.
But I guess when you get your news from liars , that is all you have.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

You forget that this was after the Mueller report showed how Trump and his team of criminals obstructed the Investigation of Russian Collusion. Remember the Mueller repoirt ? The one that has sent Multiple GOP criminals associates of Trump to jail?


Yes how could we forget, the one that absolved Trump.


So now I know you didn't read the report. That is the one that specifically did not absolve Trump in Mueller's own words. It called for further congressional investigations into Items's Mueller was obstructed on.
But I guess when you get your news from liars , that is all you have.


Liars? is the MSM liars, they are the ones feeding all this stuff since Trump was elected.

If the Mueller report did not absolve Trump, then what did it do?

Since when saying there is no crime, but there is no evidence there wasn't a logical legal term?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:49 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Yes how could we forget, the one that absolved Trump.


So now I know you didn't read the report. That is the one that specifically did not absolve Trump in Mueller's own words. It called for further congressional investigations into Items's Mueller was obstructed on.
But I guess when you get your news from liars , that is all you have.


Liars? is the MSM liars, they are the ones feeding all this stuff since Trump was elected.

If the Mueller report did not absolve Trump, then what did it do?

Since when saying there is no crime, but there is no evidence there wasn't a logical legal term?


We had a thread on the Mueller report. Go look it up. It will show you what was in there. If you were really concerned , you would read the report yourself . But who do you trust for your Media.? If not the MSM where most normal intelligent people work, then what?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:05 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

So now I know you didn't read the report. That is the one that specifically did not absolve Trump in Mueller's own words. It called for further congressional investigations into Items's Mueller was obstructed on.
But I guess when you get your news from liars , that is all you have.


Liars? is the MSM liars, they are the ones feeding all this stuff since Trump was elected.

If the Mueller report did not absolve Trump, then what did it do?

Since when saying there is no crime, but there is no evidence there wasn't a logical legal term?


We had a thread on the Mueller report. Go look it up. It will show you what was in there. If you were really concerned , you would read the report yourself . But who do you trust for your Media.? If not the MSM where most normal intelligent people work, then what?


Of course I did not waste my time reading the report, I saw the hearing... that was telling.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:39 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Liars? is the MSM liars, they are the ones feeding all this stuff since Trump was elected.

If the Mueller report did not absolve Trump, then what did it do?

Since when saying there is no crime, but there is no evidence there wasn't a logical legal term?


We had a thread on the Mueller report. Go look it up. It will show you what was in there. If you were really concerned , you would read the report yourself . But who do you trust for your Media.? If not the MSM where most normal intelligent people work, then what?


Of course I did not waste my time reading the report, I saw the hearing... that was telling.


So I take it you don;t work?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:57 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

We had a thread on the Mueller report. Go look it up. It will show you what was in there. If you were really concerned , you would read the report yourself . But who do you trust for your Media.? If not the MSM where most normal intelligent people work, then what?


Of course I did not waste my time reading the report, I saw the hearing... that was telling.


So I take it you don;t work?


Why the personal attacks, can't you libs have a civil discussion ? based on actual facts... or are you just going to shut me down?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:52 am
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of course I did not waste my time reading the report, I saw the hearing... that was telling.


So I take it you don;t work?


Why the personal attacks, can't you libs have a civil discussion ? based on actual facts... or are you just going to shut me down?


You are the one that claimed that the Mueller report "absolved Trump" when it did no such thing. My questions aren't personal. They are fact based. I just want you to post your sources. As these sources lie. Mueller has specifically stated that his report did not absolve Trump.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:11 am
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

So I take it you don;t work?


Why the personal attacks, can't you libs have a civil discussion ? based on actual facts... or are you just going to shut me down?


You are the one that claimed that the Mueller report "absolved Trump" when it did no such thing. My questions aren't personal. They are fact based. I just want you to post your sources. As these sources lie. Mueller has specifically stated that his report did not absolve Trump.


Nor did he find any crime committed or collusion by Trump.

The mere fact that NOTHING from the Mueller investigation was used on the impeachment process or articles is a clear demonstration that no significant evidence came out of it.

You can't just use innuendo or opinions as evidence. There was none at all.

The house can impeach Trump for not drinking water for all I care, and its legal under the constitution, but Trump can exercise executive authority and also be ok under the constitution.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:12 am
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

So would Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the senators who already said Trump was guilty even BEFORE the house passed the impeachment articles, should they recuse too?

This is a political exercise, lets be honest, the Democrats failed to actually move the needle here with actual evidence because of their rush to impeach was evident. No subpoenas because they feared the delay till Election season was coming to haunt them, and two very weak articles of impeachment, their vagueness is amazing. Good luck with that. The electorate looks to be the same as before impeachment, in fact I would dare say that Trump supporters are more energized than ever. Total mistake on Pelosi and now she wants to command the Senate, it appears she has surrendered and will transmit them by next week. Lets waive the white flag, of course after Democratic senators just wanted to get on with it long ago, she thought she had leverage. What a waste!

This will tremendously backfire on them by November this year!


Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.


Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:55 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Warren, Sander and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate has said zero because the trial has not happened.

The Senate Majority Leader has gone on record as saying BEFORE THE TRIAL he will vote not guilty. With zero evidence being presented, with zero witnesses being called.

Otherwise, to answer the rest of your post, it is simply whataboutism.


Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.



Nope, all of them said to IMPEACH, not investigate. Democrats have been calling to impeach for years. Even as to say that if he isn't impeached it could mean him winning reelection.

I know the economy is doing well, so that's the only strategy the Dems can use now.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:23 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.



Nope, all of them said to IMPEACH, not investigate. Democrats have been calling to impeach for years. Even as to say that if he isn't impeached it could mean him winning reelection.

I know the economy is doing well, so that's the only strategy the Dems can use now.


So many falsehoods to unpack from your posts, but let's leave what the Mueller report actually concluded alone for the time being.

Since we're only using partisan lenses here, how about some Reagan-conservative commentary on the impeachment articles and trial?

Charles Sykes:

As galling as it may be to acknowledge it, the reality is that Trump’s effort to obstruct Congress is a success, much like his well-documented efforts to obstruct the Mueller probe. The House decision not to push for the enforcement of its subpoenas virtually guarantees that the case will go to the Senate without volumes of pertinent evidence.

I am among those who think the evidence at hand is more than sufficient to justify Trump’s impeachment. But his partisan supporters will continue to declare the effort a sham and the case unproven while unironically complaining about the lack of direct evidence—and at the same time ignoring Trump’s all-out effort to conceal such direct evidence from Congress.


https://thebulwark.com/trump-is-obstruc ... s-working/

A.B. Stoddard:

Think about it this way: If Trump and Senate Republicans want to finish impeachment as quickly as possible, then they must believe that time is not on their side and that future developments are likely to cut against Trump’s position. For instance, Parnas has now been deemed a flight risk by federal prosecutors, who last week asked a judge to revoke his bail for failing to divulge a $1 million deposit from a Russian account. His attorney has said Parnas will testify that he did everything for Trump.

Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were busted at Dulles International Airport on October 9 after lunching with their business partner Rudy Giuliani at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, have been charged with a long list of crimes:

-Conspiracy
-False statements and falsification of records in election law violations
-Funneling foreign money into campaigns, including a pro-Trump super PAC...

...President Trump has said he didn’t know Parnas. This claim seems at odds with other claims and much evidence. Parnas claims to have had a secret visit with Trump at the White House during last year’s Hanukkah party, where he was personally given the Ukraine assignment by the president.


https://thebulwark.com/why-is-mitch-mcc ... -this-man/

Mona Charen:

Desperate Republicans have offered strained arguments. They say, with straight faces, that this shakedown was part of Trump’s overall anti-corruption campaign. Really? Like his efforts with Turkey, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Russia? And if Trump were truly concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why did he show no interest in the matter before 2019? Why did his own ambassador to the European Union say, “Trump doesn’t give a s*** about Ukraine. He cares only about the big stuff like the Biden investigation.”?...

..Democrats keep stressing that Trump was allowing a foreign government to intervene in a U.S. election, but that’s not the point. Let’s be realistic. We have nothing to fear from Ukraine. The corrupt part was using the leverage of American military assistance to create a false story about his domestic opponent. He was acting like a mob boss, and the Senate is about to ratify it...

...There is much more evidence that it was the Trump administration whose approach to Ukraine was corrupt. It was Rudy Giuliani who spread misinformation about the corruption-fighting U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. It was Trump who fired her, because, as Giuliani acknowledged, he needed to “get her out of the way,” the better to launch a Trumped-up smear of Trump’s political rival.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/ ... for-truth/

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:41 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.



Nope, all of them said to IMPEACH, not investigate. Democrats have been calling to impeach for years. Even as to say that if he isn't impeached it could mean him winning reelection.

I know the economy is doing well, so that's the only strategy the Dems can use now.


So many falsehoods to unpack from your posts, but let's leave what the Mueller report actually concluded alone for the time being.

Since we're only using partisan lenses here, how about some Reagan-conservative commentary on the impeachment articles and trial?

Charles Sykes:

As galling as it may be to acknowledge it, the reality is that Trump’s effort to obstruct Congress is a success, much like his well-documented efforts to obstruct the Mueller probe. The House decision not to push for the enforcement of its subpoenas virtually guarantees that the case will go to the Senate without volumes of pertinent evidence.

I am among those who think the evidence at hand is more than sufficient to justify Trump’s impeachment. But his partisan supporters will continue to declare the effort a sham and the case unproven while unironically complaining about the lack of direct evidence—and at the same time ignoring Trump’s all-out effort to conceal such direct evidence from Congress.


https://thebulwark.com/trump-is-obstruc ... s-working/

A.B. Stoddard:

Think about it this way: If Trump and Senate Republicans want to finish impeachment as quickly as possible, then they must believe that time is not on their side and that future developments are likely to cut against Trump’s position. For instance, Parnas has now been deemed a flight risk by federal prosecutors, who last week asked a judge to revoke his bail for failing to divulge a $1 million deposit from a Russian account. His attorney has said Parnas will testify that he did everything for Trump.

Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were busted at Dulles International Airport on October 9 after lunching with their business partner Rudy Giuliani at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, have been charged with a long list of crimes:

-Conspiracy
-False statements and falsification of records in election law violations
-Funneling foreign money into campaigns, including a pro-Trump super PAC...

...President Trump has said he didn’t know Parnas. This claim seems at odds with other claims and much evidence. Parnas claims to have had a secret visit with Trump at the White House during last year’s Hanukkah party, where he was personally given the Ukraine assignment by the president.


https://thebulwark.com/why-is-mitch-mcc ... -this-man/

Mona Charen:

Desperate Republicans have offered strained arguments. They say, with straight faces, that this shakedown was part of Trump’s overall anti-corruption campaign. Really? Like his efforts with Turkey, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Russia? And if Trump were truly concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why did he show no interest in the matter before 2019? Why did his own ambassador to the European Union say, “Trump doesn’t give a s*** about Ukraine. He cares only about the big stuff like the Biden investigation.”?...

..Democrats keep stressing that Trump was allowing a foreign government to intervene in a U.S. election, but that’s not the point. Let’s be realistic. We have nothing to fear from Ukraine. The corrupt part was using the leverage of American military assistance to create a false story about his domestic opponent. He was acting like a mob boss, and the Senate is about to ratify it...

...There is much more evidence that it was the Trump administration whose approach to Ukraine was corrupt. It was Rudy Giuliani who spread misinformation about the corruption-fighting U.S. ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. It was Trump who fired her, because, as Giuliani acknowledged, he needed to “get her out of the way,” the better to launch a Trumped-up smear of Trump’s political rival.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/ ... for-truth/


Lets get facts in order, tell me if this isn't correct:

Constitution allows congress to impeach even if there is no crime, can impeach on anything they like.

Obstructing congress is not a crime. Is not obstructing justice as with Nixon and Clinton.

Abuse of power is not a crime. It is not bribe or a misdemeanor.

President can use executive privilege that can use for witness subpoenaed, that can be ruled by the courts in favor or against the president.

The house never allowed the courts to decide on witnesses and evidence.

Those are facts No?

All the rest are opinions and innuendo.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:45 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Warren on impeachment, April 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/p ... hment.html

That's before the Ukraine call.

Sanders

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-s ... 997b6c2868

Also before the Ukraine call (June 2019)

Cory Booker

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics ... index.html

this is in May 2019

Kloubuchar says she will vote to convict, even before knowing what were the articles.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/klobuchar ... ial-senate

These among the other 'jurors' who have said Trump is guilty should also recuse..


Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.



Nope, all of them said to IMPEACH, not investigate. Democrats have been calling to impeach for years. Even as to say that if he isn't impeached it could mean him winning reelection.

I know the economy is doing well, so that's the only strategy the Dems can use now.


In the articles you linked, Sanders, Warren, and Booker all called for impeachment inquiries to begin. That is not the actual impeachment. Just investigating to see if there is enough evidence to draft articles of impeachment. Also, those three say nothing about the trial to be held in the Senate.

Yes, the economy. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert: I have a house so homelessness does not exist. I just ate, so no one is starving. The stock market is up, so those of us working three jobs are well off. Maybe come spend some time down here with us struggling to get by since the tax breaks for the wealthy were passed. Then you can see how a majority of us are actually doing, instead of looking at stocks and deciding everything is just fine.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:27 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Warren, Sanders, and Booker calling for the House to investigate and hold hearings to see if there is reason to impeach. Three Senators asking for investigations.

Klobuchar has not said she WILL convict. Just that she MAY convict. So, she will actually listen to the evidence.

Unlike McConnell, who will work with the defendant, and Graham who has already decided, before any evidence has been presented or any trial held, that the occupant is innocent.

Nice try, though. Thank you for the reading material. In all seriousness, I do appreciate it.



Nope, all of them said to IMPEACH, not investigate. Democrats have been calling to impeach for years. Even as to say that if he isn't impeached it could mean him winning reelection.

I know the economy is doing well, so that's the only strategy the Dems can use now.


In the articles you linked, Sanders, Warren, and Booker all called for impeachment inquiries to begin. That is not the actual impeachment. Just investigating to see if there is enough evidence to draft articles of impeachment. Also, those three say nothing about the trial to be held in the Senate.

Yes, the economy. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert: I have a house so homelessness does not exist. I just ate, so no one is starving. The stock market is up, so those of us working three jobs are well off. Maybe come spend some time down here with us struggling to get by since the tax breaks for the wealthy were passed. Then you can see how a majority of us are actually doing, instead of looking at stocks and deciding everything is just fine.


So now because the party in power has those numbers good, they aren't worth anything, but when the other party is in power yes they are important. OK.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:30 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Why the personal attacks, can't you libs have a civil discussion ? based on actual facts... or are you just going to shut me down?


You are the one that claimed that the Mueller report "absolved Trump" when it did no such thing. My questions aren't personal. They are fact based. I just want you to post your sources. As these sources lie. Mueller has specifically stated that his report did not absolve Trump.


Nor did he find any crime committed or collusion by Trump.

The mere fact that NOTHING from the Mueller investigation was used on the impeachment process or articles is a clear demonstration that no significant evidence came out of it.

You can't just use innuendo or opinions as evidence. There was none at all.

The house can impeach Trump for not drinking water for all I care, and its legal under the constitution, but Trump can exercise executive authority and also be ok under the constitution.


Mueller was obstructed in his report, and said so. That means if Congress was to do it's job, they would investigate further, especially since MULTIPLE Trump associates were accused, Tried, and CONVICTED of federal crimes. That is not innuendo or opinions, that is the sign of a corrupt and malignant operation within the White House that started on the campaign trail.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:34 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

You are the one that claimed that the Mueller report "absolved Trump" when it did no such thing. My questions aren't personal. They are fact based. I just want you to post your sources. As these sources lie. Mueller has specifically stated that his report did not absolve Trump.


Nor did he find any crime committed or collusion by Trump.

The mere fact that NOTHING from the Mueller investigation was used on the impeachment process or articles is a clear demonstration that no significant evidence came out of it.

You can't just use innuendo or opinions as evidence. There was none at all.

The house can impeach Trump for not drinking water for all I care, and its legal under the constitution, but Trump can exercise executive authority and also be ok under the constitution.


Mueller was obstructed in his report, and said so. That means if Congress was to do it's job, they would investigate further, especially since MULTIPLE Trump associates were accused, Tried, and CONVICTED of federal crimes. That is not innuendo or opinions, that is the sign of a corrupt and malignant operation within the White House that started on the campaign trail.


Years of Mueller report and found nothing on Trump and yet you want more investigations?
Time to move on, even the Dems don't see anything on the Mueller report, they did not even add anything from that to the articles of impeachment they voted for. That ship has sailed.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:37 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Nor did he find any crime committed or collusion by Trump.

The mere fact that NOTHING from the Mueller investigation was used on the impeachment process or articles is a clear demonstration that no significant evidence came out of it.

You can't just use innuendo or opinions as evidence. There was none at all.

The house can impeach Trump for not drinking water for all I care, and its legal under the constitution, but Trump can exercise executive authority and also be ok under the constitution.


Mueller was obstructed in his report, and said so. That means if Congress was to do it's job, they would investigate further, especially since MULTIPLE Trump associates were accused, Tried, and CONVICTED of federal crimes. That is not innuendo or opinions, that is the sign of a corrupt and malignant operation within the White House that started on the campaign trail.


Years of Mueller report and found nothing on Trump and yet you want more investigations?
Time to move on, even the Dems don't see anything on the Mueller report, they did not even add anything from that to the articles of impeachment they voted for. That ship has sailed.


So you are going to repeat without answering the core issue of corruption?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:40 pm
by petertenthije
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Years of Mueller report and found nothing on Trump and yet you want more investigations?
Time to move on, even the Dems don't see anything on the Mueller report, they did not even add anything from that to the articles of impeachment they voted for. That ship has sailed.
After countless investigations into Hillary, I think it's only fair for republicans to STFU when another Trump investigation is launched. It's a bit hypocritical, would you not agree?

Keep in mind the countless Hillary investigations all told there was nothing. Including the one completed only a month or so ago.

Meanwhile, the Trump investigations have already led to several convictions of high profile Trump associates. Not to mention serious doubt as to the behavior of the Trump's themselves.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:41 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Mueller was obstructed in his report, and said so. That means if Congress was to do it's job, they would investigate further, especially since MULTIPLE Trump associates were accused, Tried, and CONVICTED of federal crimes. That is not innuendo or opinions, that is the sign of a corrupt and malignant operation within the White House that started on the campaign trail.


Years of Mueller report and found nothing on Trump and yet you want more investigations?
Time to move on, even the Dems don't see anything on the Mueller report, they did not even add anything from that to the articles of impeachment they voted for. That ship has sailed.


So you are going to repeat without answering the core issue of corruption?


Corruption? if we are to opine on corruption your 'scandal free' presidency of Obama has a lot in its plate based on that. Lets stop pretending and using arguments just because you folks hate Trump.

Can't see anything different here than past administrations.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:42 pm
by casinterest
Life is about to get very rough for the GOP members in swing states.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ial-097296


Polling from Hart Research found that 63 percent of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina would react unfavorably if their senator voted against calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents during the Senate impeachment trial. Another poll from Morning Consult found 57 percent of voters believe the Senate should call additional witnesses. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Republicans.


While Senate Majority Leader McConnell has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive. Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:09 pm
by Aaron747
casinterest wrote:
Life is about to get very rough for the GOP members in swing states.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ial-097296


Polling from Hart Research found that 63 percent of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina would react unfavorably if their senator voted against calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents during the Senate impeachment trial. Another poll from Morning Consult found 57 percent of voters believe the Senate should call additional witnesses. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Republicans.


While Senate Majority Leader McConnell has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive. Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump.


McConnell is not dumb - he wants to keep his majority. Looks like the WH had better be ready to produce witnesses.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:22 pm
by casinterest
Aaron747 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Life is about to get very rough for the GOP members in swing states.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ial-097296


Polling from Hart Research found that 63 percent of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina would react unfavorably if their senator voted against calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents during the Senate impeachment trial. Another poll from Morning Consult found 57 percent of voters believe the Senate should call additional witnesses. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Republicans.


While Senate Majority Leader McConnell has locked up enough Republican votes to ignore demands for a bipartisan framework for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, his Democratic counterpart is readying a counteroffensive. Schumer will force a series of votes designed to squeeze vulnerable Republicans and harm them on the campaign trail if they side with Trump.


McConnell is not dumb - he wants to keep his majority. Looks like the WH had better be ready to produce witnesses.


McConnell is in a really tough place, as he is running for reelection in a state that kicked out a GOP governor. While McConnell should in theory be safe, he will also face growing scrutiny as Kentucky deals with the fallout of the Tariff war.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:26 pm
by AirWorthy99
I hope Hunter and Joe also come in to testify. Also Schiff. The whistle blower too.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:32 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
I hope Hunter and Joe also come in to testify. Also Schiff. The whistle blower too.


Hunter and Joe are not on trial, neither is Schiff. They had nothing to do with the impeachable offenses Trump committed.
Only folks that do not understand the United States Constitution or Law would suggest that they testify.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:35 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
I hope Hunter and Joe also come in to testify. Also Schiff. The whistle blower too.


Hunter and Joe are not on trial, neither is Schiff. They had nothing to do with the impeachable offenses Trump committed.
Only folks that do not understand the United States Constitution or Law would suggest that they testify.


Neither is Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney are on trial.

The ones I mentioned appear to be as involved too.