Page 14 of 15

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:49 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
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.


So Hunter , Biden and Schiff are part of the Trump administration now? Good to know. Will Trump hand over the rains to Biden now?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:02 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
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.


'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:03 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

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.


'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:05 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Neither is Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney are on trial.

The ones I mentioned appear to be as involved too.


'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


The WH made an unprecedented refusal to cooperate in a properly executed House inquiry, duh. Nixon eventually handed over evidence to the House, Clinton handed over evidence to the House, and Reagan's staffers all testified during the Iran-Contra hearings. This is not rocket science.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:41 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Neither is Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney are on trial.

The ones I mentioned appear to be as involved too.


'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


Remember that charge in the impeachment? Obstruction of Justice? Start there.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:27 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


Remember that charge in the impeachment? Obstruction of Justice? Start there.


Negative, Obstruction of congress. which is not a crime. https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... chment.pdf

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:29 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


The WH made an unprecedented refusal to cooperate in a properly executed House inquiry, duh. Nixon eventually handed over evidence to the House, Clinton handed over evidence to the House, and Reagan's staffers all testified during the Iran-Contra hearings. This is not rocket science.


You continue to refuse to answer my question.

Any takers? why didn't the house of representatives officially subpoena those witnesses they want in the senate trial? anyone?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:28 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Neither is Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney are on trial.

The ones I mentioned appear to be as involved too.


'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


Mostly because the GOP administration refused to answer the subpoenas. Partly because those who Democrats wanted to testify were being tried in other cases.

Now, an honest question for Republicans:

They had ever opportunity to question witnesses and blow holes wide open in the impeachment inquiry but, instead, went on unhinged and pointless rants about Hunter Biden and Burisma. They had four years to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two of those years, they could have impeached Joe Biden, if it were found crimes had been committed. Why didn't Republicans do any of that?

EDIT:

Here is an article showing the subpoenas issued by Democrats and which Republicans administration officials refused to answer them

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... gy/602782/

Mick Mulvaney
Robert Blair
John Eisenburg
Michael Ellis
T. Ulrich Brechbuhl
Brian McCormack
Russell T. Vought
Rick Perry
Michael Duffy
Mike Pompeo

The list goes on. Add to that, Democrats actually went on record and under oath extending an invitation for the man himself to testify under oath.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:32 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

'Appear to be' does not equate to involved - the Bidens have no direct knowledge of any misconduct by the White House. If Schiff committed any misconduct, that would be a matter to address via the House Ethics Committee.

Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and Eisenberg are supposed to testify because they have direct knowledge of these matters and were called properly under House procedures. Rudy Giuliani and his indicted associate Lev Parnas should also be called. If these witnesses can easily exonerate POTUS, there should be no delay in hearing from them, no?


The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


Mostly because the GOP administration refused to answer the subpoenas. Partly because those who Democrats wanted to testify were being tried in other cases.

Now, an honest question for Republicans:

They had ever opportunity to question witnesses and blow holes wide open in the impeachment inquiry but, instead, went on unhinged and pointless rants about Hunter Biden and Burisma. They had four years to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two of those years, they could have impeached Joe Biden, if it were found crimes had been committed. Why didn't Republicans do any of that?


I think the video of Joe bragging about the investigation was after he left office. So it did not happen before since until now the facts are out.

About the subpoenas they could have taken them to court. Couldn't they?

BTW, Cory Booker just dropped out of the race, what ever happened to the most diverse field of candidates?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:38 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

The Democrats all had their chance to subpoena them when they were doing their 'investigations' in the house. Why didn't they do that back then?

Can any of you tell me why?


Mostly because the GOP administration refused to answer the subpoenas. Partly because those who Democrats wanted to testify were being tried in other cases.

Now, an honest question for Republicans:

They had ever opportunity to question witnesses and blow holes wide open in the impeachment inquiry but, instead, went on unhinged and pointless rants about Hunter Biden and Burisma. They had four years to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two of those years, they could have impeached Joe Biden, if it were found crimes had been committed. Why didn't Republicans do any of that?


I think the video of Joe bragging about the investigation was after he left office. So it did not happen before since until now the facts are out.

About the subpoenas they could have taken them to court. Couldn't they?

BTW, Cory Booker just dropped out of the race, what ever happened to the most diverse field of candidates?


Joe Biden bragging about the investigation? You mean forcing Ukraine to fire their corrupt prosecutor to secure funding to fight Russian aggression? That video? If you say so.

Two things about subpoenas: they could go through the court system. But, they are legal and enforceable documents. Ignoring subpoenas, for normal people, results in fines and jail time. It is called "being in contempt" and it is very serious. The House could, in theory, compel the Capital police to arrest those in contempt. Overly dramatic, which is probably why that did not happen. The point is: subpoenas were issued by Democrats. They were ignored by the Republican administration.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:42 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Mostly because the GOP administration refused to answer the subpoenas. Partly because those who Democrats wanted to testify were being tried in other cases.

Now, an honest question for Republicans:

They had ever opportunity to question witnesses and blow holes wide open in the impeachment inquiry but, instead, went on unhinged and pointless rants about Hunter Biden and Burisma. They had four years to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two of those years, they could have impeached Joe Biden, if it were found crimes had been committed. Why didn't Republicans do any of that?


I think the video of Joe bragging about the investigation was after he left office. So it did not happen before since until now the facts are out.

About the subpoenas they could have taken them to court. Couldn't they?

BTW, Cory Booker just dropped out of the race, what ever happened to the most diverse field of candidates?


Joe Biden bragging about the investigation? You mean forcing Ukraine to fire their corrupt prosecutor to secure funding to fight Russian aggression? That video? If you say so.

Two things about subpoenas: they could go through the court system. But, they are legal and enforceable documents. Ignoring subpoenas, for normal people, results in fines and jail time. It is called "being in contempt" and it is very serious. The House could, in theory, compel the Capital police to arrest those in contempt. Overly dramatic, which is probably why that did not happen. The point is: subpoenas were issued by Democrats. They were ignored by the Republican administration.


You just said they could have taken them to court. They decided not to because as you know they wanted to impeach by Christmas. Do we agree?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:57 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

I think the video of Joe bragging about the investigation was after he left office. So it did not happen before since until now the facts are out.

About the subpoenas they could have taken them to court. Couldn't they?

BTW, Cory Booker just dropped out of the race, what ever happened to the most diverse field of candidates?


Joe Biden bragging about the investigation? You mean forcing Ukraine to fire their corrupt prosecutor to secure funding to fight Russian aggression? That video? If you say so.

Two things about subpoenas: they could go through the court system. But, they are legal and enforceable documents. Ignoring subpoenas, for normal people, results in fines and jail time. It is called "being in contempt" and it is very serious. The House could, in theory, compel the Capital police to arrest those in contempt. Overly dramatic, which is probably why that did not happen. The point is: subpoenas were issued by Democrats. They were ignored by the Republican administration.


You just said they could have taken them to court. They decided not to because as you know they wanted to impeach by Christmas. Do we agree?


Those requests are still in court, and the reason impeachment occurred is because Trump abused his power by interfering with a US citizen that was running in the Election of 2020.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:59 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Joe Biden bragging about the investigation? You mean forcing Ukraine to fire their corrupt prosecutor to secure funding to fight Russian aggression? That video? If you say so.

Two things about subpoenas: they could go through the court system. But, they are legal and enforceable documents. Ignoring subpoenas, for normal people, results in fines and jail time. It is called "being in contempt" and it is very serious. The House could, in theory, compel the Capital police to arrest those in contempt. Overly dramatic, which is probably why that did not happen. The point is: subpoenas were issued by Democrats. They were ignored by the Republican administration.


You just said they could have taken them to court. They decided not to because as you know they wanted to impeach by Christmas. Do we agree?


Those requests are still in court, and the reason impeachment occurred is because Trump abused his power by interfering with a US citizen that was running in the Election of 2020.


Again, abuse of power is not a crime. Fair enough they can impeach for anything they like.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:10 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

You just said they could have taken them to court. They decided not to because as you know they wanted to impeach by Christmas. Do we agree?


Those requests are still in court, and the reason impeachment occurred is because Trump abused his power by interfering with a US citizen that was running in the Election of 2020.


Again, abuse of power is not a crime. Fair enough they can impeach for anything they like.


It is not "just anything" It is enshrined in the constitution, which makes it a crime. Using executive power against a citizen is one of the fights we had with the Monarchy under English Rule.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:12 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Those requests are still in court, and the reason impeachment occurred is because Trump abused his power by interfering with a US citizen that was running in the Election of 2020.


Again, abuse of power is not a crime. Fair enough they can impeach for anything they like.


It is not "just anything" It is enshrined in the constitution, which makes it a crime. Using executive power against a citizen is one of the fights we had with the Monarchy under English Rule.


Where in the constitution it says abuse of power is a crime?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:25 pm
by casinterest
https://www.thenation.com/article/impea ... use-power/

Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, impeachment and removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” was conceived as a preemptive safeguard against an incumbent who, by words and by deeds, has evinced an intent to vandalize the Constitution in violation of the presidential oath of office.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:27 pm
by AirWorthy99
casinterest wrote:
https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-constitution-abuse-power/

Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, impeachment and removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” was conceived as a preemptive safeguard against an incumbent who, by words and by deeds, has evinced an intent to vandalize the Constitution in violation of the presidential oath of office.


Nice try, no.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:29 pm
by casinterest
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-constitution-abuse-power/

Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, impeachment and removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” was conceived as a preemptive safeguard against an incumbent who, by words and by deeds, has evinced an intent to vandalize the Constitution in violation of the presidential oath of office.


Nice try, no.



High Crimes is about abuse of power. It is crimes only those in power can commit,

I cannot force a foreign government to investigate a fellow citizen. Trump's attempt to do so is a high crime.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:20 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-constitution-abuse-power/

Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, impeachment and removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” was conceived as a preemptive safeguard against an incumbent who, by words and by deeds, has evinced an intent to vandalize the Constitution in violation of the presidential oath of office.


Nice try, no.


Here are the actual and full articles of impeachment word for word

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/78657984 ... dent-trump

The House found enough evidence of obstruction of Congress and soliciting a foreign government for information on a political opponent.

EDIT:

The House found enough of the evidence was worthy of trial. Hence, he has been impeached. There is no disputing that. Once those articles were passed by a majority in the House, it is done. The only other thing is the actual trial. Which the Republican administration does not want. But, the Constitution says must happen. Add to that, the Republican administration is working with jurors, Republican Senators, to have a Russian show trial and declare victory. With no witnesses, no testimony, just a vote.

As an aside, Republicans were screaming and crying and demanding witnesses testify. They have that opportunity but they are refusing. I wonder what has changed?

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:34 am
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

You just said they could have taken them to court. They decided not to because as you know they wanted to impeach by Christmas. Do we agree?


Those requests are still in court, and the reason impeachment occurred is because Trump abused his power by interfering with a US citizen that was running in the Election of 2020.


Again, abuse of power is not a crime. Fair enough they can impeach for anything they like.


There are political crimes and statutory crimes - abuse of power is the former and obstruction is the latter. In Federalist 65, Hamilton wrote the following:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

The framers intentionally did not define or list all ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as they knew there would be many possible situations for violation of public trust.

At its core, impeachment has historically turned on acts that either impeded a constitutional officer’s capacity to execute their duties or grossly violated public trust. In fact, a number of impeachment trials have revolved almost exclusively around events that were disconnected from an officeholder’s responsibilities, thereby demonstrating that the definition of impeachable infractions does not stop at the abuse of official powers.

https://www.aei.org/research-products/r ... nors-mean/

Certainly holding up Congressionally-approved and budgeted aid for personal reasons on recommendation of a private attorney and blocking inquiry of Congress into that action because it ‘feels unfair’ or the people involved are disliked fits the description of ‘events disconnected from officeholder’s responsibilities’. Only a total sycophant would argue they do not.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:25 am
by Aaron747
Uh oh, McConnell’s not going to like this - Rudy’s bagman is singing like a canary to save himself from full-on prosecution:

As the Senate prepares to try President Donald Trump in an impeachment trial over his attempts to pressure Ukraine into helping his reelection campaign, Ukrainian American businessman Lev Parnas, a key player in that effort, is sharing new documents with the House Intelligence Committee.

The trove of new records includes the contents of several devices that were seized by authorities in October, when Parnas was arrested on campaign finance charges. More than 700 pages of documents authorities removed from Parnas' home have also been turned over.


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/13/giu ... hment.html

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:01 am
by Okie
Aaron747 wrote:
Uh oh, McConnell’s not going to like this - Rudy’s bagman is singing like a canary to save himself from full-on prosecution:


Well there Dean Wormer I suspect you are going to have to put him on "double secret impeachment" and put Neidermeyer back on the case :wink2: .

Okie

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:09 am
by Aaron747
Okie wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Uh oh, McConnell’s not going to like this - Rudy’s bagman is singing like a canary to save himself from full-on prosecution:


Well there Dean Wormer I suspect you are going to have to put him on "double secret impeachment" and put Neidermeyer back on the case :wink2: .

Okie


Too late for a joke about McConnell hitting the TOGA button? :D

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:35 am
by Ken777
Looks like we are now at point of moving the Articles to the Senate for a Trial. Potentially the trial could start late this week, as soon as the GOP Leaders take the Oath they know they will break every time needed.

The big issue centers around Senator Susan Colins and her ability to get sufficient moderate Republican votes to allow witnesses in the trial. Failure to do so will result a joke of a trial.

Most important trial in my memory was for the Oklahoma City Bombing. The "trial" will be a total joke and the voting public will understand that - around 70% of the voters want witnesses in the trial. Payday for the Democrats could then be in November - especially when you remember that Trump LOST the popular vote by around 3,000,000 voters. Let's be honest - those 3,000,000 voters are not going to be impressed by the clowns turning the trial into a joke.

My bet is that Susan Collins will fail to get the job done - just like when she turned her back when the Sex Offender went into the Supreme Court. The trial will be a joke and a lot of Republicans will be looking around to see where their integrity went.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:59 am
by casinterest
Ken777 wrote:
Looks like we are now at point of moving the Articles to the Senate for a Trial. Potentially the trial could start late this week, as soon as the GOP Leaders take the Oath they know they will break every time needed.

The big issue centers around Senator Susan Colins and her ability to get sufficient moderate Republican votes to allow witnesses in the trial. Failure to do so will result a joke of a trial.

Most important trial in my memory was for the Oklahoma City Bombing. The "trial" will be a total joke and the voting public will understand that - around 70% of the voters want witnesses in the trial. Payday for the Democrats could then be in November - especially when you remember that Trump LOST the popular vote by around 3,000,000 voters. Let's be honest - those 3,000,000 voters are not going to be impressed by the clowns turning the trial into a joke.

My bet is that Susan Collins will fail to get the job done - just like when she turned her back when the Sex Offender went into the Supreme Court. The trial will be a joke and a lot of Republicans will be looking around to see where their integrity went.


The difference this time is that Susan Collins is running for Reelection this year. Memories will be a lot longer on her accomplishments this year. Collins, Tillis and others can't have a sham trial. It will devastate them in their reelection campaigns.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:00 am
by Aaron747
Ken777 wrote:
Looks like we are now at point of moving the Articles to the Senate for a Trial. Potentially the trial could start late this week, as soon as the GOP Leaders take the Oath they know they will break every time needed.

The big issue centers around Senator Susan Colins and her ability to get sufficient moderate Republican votes to allow witnesses in the trial. Failure to do so will result a joke of a trial.

Most important trial in my memory was for the Oklahoma City Bombing. The "trial" will be a total joke and the voting public will understand that - around 70% of the voters want witnesses in the trial. Payday for the Democrats could then be in November - especially when you remember that Trump LOST the popular vote by around 3,000,000 voters. Let's be honest - those 3,000,000 voters are not going to be impressed by the clowns turning the trial into a joke.

My bet is that Susan Collins will fail to get the job done - just like when she turned her back when the Sex Offender went into the Supreme Court. The trial will be a joke and a lot of Republicans will be looking around to see where their integrity went.


Dunno if the purple state Senators can get off that easy - a clear majority of constituents want witnesses in the trial, and according to the latest Fox poll, 17% of GOP now supports impeachment in general. It didn’t look close to that around November.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:08 am
by DarkSnowyNight
Ken777 wrote:
Payday for the Democrats could then be in November - especially when you remember that Trump LOST the popular vote by around 3,000,000 voters. Let's be honest - those 3,000,000 voters are not going to be impressed by the clowns turning the trial into a joke.


Could be, yes. The maga people do not understand this, since they interpret things like luck and anomaly as ordained result. But the factors that allowed him to squeak by in 2016 do not exist today. There is no Hillary keeping Democrats home. PA, OH, MI, & FL, states he barely won in 2016 (less than 1% in those cases), swing further Democratic as each of the more left leaning outliers steadily drop from the Primary. Even TX is not looking as safe as they would like it to be.

And yes, the impeachment does have an effect. If nothing else, a practical one. Exactly what would the GOP expect to happen in December of this year, should trump win and we take the Senate?

He does stand a better than decent chance of losing the race, and there is still a better than average chance he'll be removed from office. But if accidents continue to happen, and he somehow dodges these things, he still is still not long for the world. There is just too much that can happen, and he is just too plainly stupid to survive any of that without enough well placed friends.


Ken777 wrote:
My bet is that Susan Collins will fail to get the job done - just like when she turned her back when the Sex Offender went into the Supreme Court. The trial will be a joke and a lot of Republicans will be looking around to see where their integrity went.


I suspect the opposite. Collins is up for re-election this year in a state Clinton won in 2016 and is currently polling behind a somewhat anemic candidate. Supporting trump (which voting not-guilty would be, as it is not legally possible to determine he is not guilty per se) would not help her here.

Even McConnell only has so much leverage to exert in her direction, as he himself stands a good chance of losing his job, based on his current -and YOY- polling numbers.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:23 am
by Ken777
casinterest wrote:
The difference this time is that Susan Collins is running for Reelection this year. Memories will be a lot longer on her accomplishments this year. Collins, Tillis and others can't have a sham trial. It will devastate them in their reelection campaigns.


This is going to be the GOP challenge. Trump could care less if ANY of the GOP senators lose their elections as all he cares about is his own election. He also has more problems than any of the GOP senators running as they don't have the NY DA grabbing their Tax Returns and taking them to the Grand Jury. Question - can the State of NY Garnish Trumps Presidential Retirement benefits? And then there will been all of the other legal fees if he doesn't have the Office to cover him.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:37 am
by DarkSnowyNight
Ken777 wrote:
This is going to be the GOP challenge. Trump could care less if ANY of the GOP senators lose their elections as all he cares about is his own election. He also has more problems than any of the GOP senators running as they don't have the NY DA grabbing their Tax Returns and taking them to the Grand Jury.



He should care. Once the GOP is not longer a majority there, there is nothing stopping House and Senate from doing this all over again. With the obvious note that it would happen at a much quicker pace.

Ken777 wrote:
Question - can the State of NY Garnish Trumps Presidential Retirement benefits? And then there will been all of the other legal fees if he doesn't have the Office to cover him.


Yes, they can. Garnishments are effective against all salaries and pension types, without regard to state lines involved, so long as there is a court order to do so.

He would do well never to set foot in NY again after his presidency is over. As a private citizen, they will be able to jail him immediately, pending the trials of whatever he will inevitably be charged with there.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:35 pm
by AirWorthy99
Ken777 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The difference this time is that Susan Collins is running for Reelection this year. Memories will be a lot longer on her accomplishments this year. Collins, Tillis and others can't have a sham trial. It will devastate them in their reelection campaigns.


This is going to be the GOP challenge. Trump could care less if ANY of the GOP senators lose their elections as all he cares about is his own election. He also has more problems than any of the GOP senators running as they don't have the NY DA grabbing their Tax Returns and taking them to the Grand Jury. Question - can the State of NY Garnish Trumps Presidential Retirement benefits? And then there will been all of the other legal fees if he doesn't have the Office to cover him.


I see zero GOP senators support for impeachment.

And possible 2 Democratic senators voting against it. Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

So I would be worried if in the senate the Dems won't get no Bi-partisan support as what happened in the house. But the Republicans will get bi-partisan votes against it as in the house.

Impeachment is only an issue for most of the coastal states. Middle America doesn't support this in masse.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:18 pm
by seb146
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The difference this time is that Susan Collins is running for Reelection this year. Memories will be a lot longer on her accomplishments this year. Collins, Tillis and others can't have a sham trial. It will devastate them in their reelection campaigns.


This is going to be the GOP challenge. Trump could care less if ANY of the GOP senators lose their elections as all he cares about is his own election. He also has more problems than any of the GOP senators running as they don't have the NY DA grabbing their Tax Returns and taking them to the Grand Jury. Question - can the State of NY Garnish Trumps Presidential Retirement benefits? And then there will been all of the other legal fees if he doesn't have the Office to cover him.


I see zero GOP senators support for impeachment.

And possible 2 Democratic senators voting against it. Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

So I would be worried if in the senate the Dems won't get no Bi-partisan support as what happened in the house. But the Republicans will get bi-partisan votes against it as in the house.

Impeachment is only an issue for most of the coastal states. Middle America doesn't support this in masse.


So, again, impeachment has already happened. The House voted on it. It is a done deal. The actual trial in the Senate is the only thing left. But, once the articles of impeachment are passed, the president is impeached.

As far as Senators voting for conviction, we know of two who are against and who will even work with the impeached instead of working for a fair trial. We also know there are four Republican Senators who want an actual trial with witnesses, instead of a dog and pony show that McConnell and Graham and the White House want. Those four are Collins (ME) Romney (UT) Murkowski (AK) and Alexander (TN). There are Senators on both sides of the aisle who want an actual trial. We know Republicans will vote to acquit and Democrats will vote to convict. But, there are some honest brokers on both sides who want the American people to see exactly what their "leader" is doing.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:30 pm
by casinterest
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:11 am
by seb146
casinterest wrote:
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/


Not to worry! Rand Paul plans to call Hunter Biden!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478 ... mpeachment

Because, you know, Hunter Biden is on trial. Never mind Republicans could have held hearings for four years about Hunter and Joe Biden if they were really that concerned about Burisma and corruption and all that......

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:28 am
by casinterest
seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/


Not to worry! Rand Paul plans to call Hunter Biden!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478 ... mpeachment

Because, you know, Hunter Biden is on trial. Never mind Republicans could have held hearings for four years about Hunter and Joe Biden if they were really that concerned about Burisma and corruption and all that......


Hunter Biden is a separate issue, and one really tied to the business dealings of Burisma. Ukraine and other companies can make arguments about whether this was corrupt or not. It is not for the US to pressure investigations 4 years after the fact,

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:05 pm
by AirWorthy99
seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/


Not to worry! Rand Paul plans to call Hunter Biden!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478 ... mpeachment

Because, you know, Hunter Biden is on trial. Never mind Republicans could have held hearings for four years about Hunter and Joe Biden if they were really that concerned about Burisma and corruption and all that......


The left is 'hoping' and 'expecting' a smoking gun will come out of the witnesses they like. They expect them to 'stick' it to Trump. This can very well backfire and be Mueller hearing part 2. I know the evidence is weak and they need more, but to have these high expectations would ultimately lead to major disappointments. I don't think much of anything new will come out of those 'wish-list' witnesses the Democrats have.

About Hunter, well, I guess its only fair if you get the witnesses you like, and the Republicans call the witnesses they also like, something that was never afforded in the House.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:12 pm
by tommy1808
casinterest wrote:
The GOP will find a painful re-election campaign this year if they continue to pray for election funding.


by praying you mean "making sure certain foreign money has unobstructed access"? And you would be correct...

best regards
Thomas

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:18 pm
by tommy1808
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/


Not to worry! Rand Paul plans to call Hunter Biden!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478 ... mpeachment

Because, you know, Hunter Biden is on trial. Never mind Republicans could have held hearings for four years about Hunter and Joe Biden if they were really that concerned about Burisma and corruption and all that......


The left is 'hoping' and 'expecting' a smoking gun will come out of the witnesses they like. .


Smoking gun *will* come out? We found so many smoking guns that the smoke is obscuring everyone´s view´s.....

best regards
Thomas

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:24 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Looks like the articles will be sent Tomorrow Jan 15, long with the House Impeachment managers.

The White house is currently concerned as it appears the trial will call witnesses. This will work against Trump's ability to Spin away the impeachment trial.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impeachmen ... ate-trial/


Not to worry! Rand Paul plans to call Hunter Biden!

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478 ... mpeachment

Because, you know, Hunter Biden is on trial. Never mind Republicans could have held hearings for four years about Hunter and Joe Biden if they were really that concerned about Burisma and corruption and all that......


The left is 'hoping' and 'expecting' a smoking gun will come out of the witnesses they like. They expect them to 'stick' it to Trump. This can very well backfire and be Mueller hearing part 2. I know the evidence is weak and they need more, but to have these high expectations would ultimately lead to major disappointments. I don't think much of anything new will come out of those 'wish-list' witnesses the Democrats have.

About Hunter, well, I guess its only fair if you get the witnesses you like, and the Republicans call the witnesses they also like, something that was never afforded in the House.


Thoughts and prayers much? Guess you haven’t heard of Lev Parnas. Some conservative commentary for ya:

https://thebulwark.com/why-is-mitch-mcc ... s-man/?amp

And more:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/texts-g ... tch-2020-1

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... C19C39AAF1

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:25 pm
by tommy1808
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-constitution-abuse-power/

Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, impeachment and removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors” was conceived as a preemptive safeguard against an incumbent who, by words and by deeds, has evinced an intent to vandalize the Constitution in violation of the presidential oath of office.


Nice try, no.



High Crimes is about abuse of power. It is crimes only those in power can commit,

I cannot force a foreign government to investigate a fellow citizen. Trump's attempt to do so is a high crime.


The Republicans own constitutional expert witness is on record that the president can be impeached without having committed a crime. So there is that.

What is impeachment for? The president not (Ab)using the powers of his office to secure reelection. End of Story. The Founding fathers could not have been any clearer. Trump is their personal nightmare president.

best regards
Thomas

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:29 pm
by AirWorthy99
tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Nice try, no.



High Crimes is about abuse of power. It is crimes only those in power can commit,

I cannot force a foreign government to investigate a fellow citizen. Trump's attempt to do so is a high crime.


The Republicans own constitutional expert witness is on record that the president can be impeached without having committed a crime. So there is that.

What is impeachment for? The president not (Ab)using the powers of his office to secure reelection. End of Story. The Founding fathers could not have been any clearer. Trump is their personal nightmare president.

best regards
Thomas


I have said that too. Just that since the case was so weak you folks need more witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial to see if you can change the expected outcome which will be acquittal.

So this 'impeachment' tool would be abused over and over as long as we want to 'cancel' an election. This may come back to bite a Democratic president in the future.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:28 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:


High Crimes is about abuse of power. It is crimes only those in power can commit,

I cannot force a foreign government to investigate a fellow citizen. Trump's attempt to do so is a high crime.


The Republicans own constitutional expert witness is on record that the president can be impeached without having committed a crime. So there is that.

What is impeachment for? The president not (Ab)using the powers of his office to secure reelection. End of Story. The Founding fathers could not have been any clearer. Trump is their personal nightmare president.

best regards
Thomas


I have said that too. Just that since the case was so weak you folks need more witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial to see if you can change the expected outcome which will be acquittal.

So this 'impeachment' tool would be abused over and over as long as we want to 'cancel' an election. This may come back to bite a Democratic president in the future.


It’s not about cancelling an election. Now you’re missing the view from FL330.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:32 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

The Republicans own constitutional expert witness is on record that the president can be impeached without having committed a crime. So there is that.

What is impeachment for? The president not (Ab)using the powers of his office to secure reelection. End of Story. The Founding fathers could not have been any clearer. Trump is their personal nightmare president.

best regards
Thomas


I have said that too. Just that since the case was so weak you folks need more witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial to see if you can change the expected outcome which will be acquittal.

So this 'impeachment' tool would be abused over and over as long as we want to 'cancel' an election. This may come back to bite a Democratic president in the future.


It’s not about cancelling an election. Now you’re missing the view from FL330.


Of course it is, you folks been at this since the moment he was elected. First with the Russian collusion hoax, then Stormy and now with Ukraine.

But what makes this most aggravating is we are less than a year from an election, and you wish to cancel him out even before voters have a chance to make their decisions themselves, telling us how stupid we are to elect this guy. Good luck with that.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:40 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

I have said that too. Just that since the case was so weak you folks need more witnesses and evidence in the Senate trial to see if you can change the expected outcome which will be acquittal.

So this 'impeachment' tool would be abused over and over as long as we want to 'cancel' an election. This may come back to bite a Democratic president in the future.


It’s not about cancelling an election. Now you’re missing the view from FL330.


Of course it is, you folks been at this since the moment he was elected. First with the Russian collusion hoax, then Stormy and now with Ukraine.

But what makes this most aggravating is we are less than a year from an election, and you wish to cancel him out even before voters have a chance to make their decisions themselves, telling us how stupid we are to elect this guy. Good luck with that.


Collusion was not a hoax - the words in the report are ‘did not establish’ - that does not mean innocence, it means loose ends in the investigation were not tied due to incomplete investigation or lies from witnesses. There are excellent legal analyses of this online, but why bother linking them when you won’t read them? And your Ukraine denial is already destroyed with the stuff Lev Parnas just brought out - he was Rudy’s bagman and there’s going to be much more out in the next 36-48 hours.

‘You guys’ makes no sense - yes 80% of Dems don’t like 45, but I’m an Independent, and the figure is close to 55% for those in my category. Maybe electing someone with better ethics would have yielded a different result in support, hey who knows? The GOP disapproval numbers will climb too as more of the Parnas revelations come out. The dude might be shady, but ‘documents don’t have a reputation’, as they say.

There’s nothing aggravating about any of this to people who are not failed patriots and want the Constitution’s articles carried out. It’s only aggravating to those triggered by what a screw-up their hero is turning out to be.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:46 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

It’s not about cancelling an election. Now you’re missing the view from FL330.


Of course it is, you folks been at this since the moment he was elected. First with the Russian collusion hoax, then Stormy and now with Ukraine.

But what makes this most aggravating is we are less than a year from an election, and you wish to cancel him out even before voters have a chance to make their decisions themselves, telling us how stupid we are to elect this guy. Good luck with that.


Collusion was not a hoax - the words in the report are ‘did not establish’ - that does not mean innocence, it means loose ends in the investigation were not tied due to incomplete investigation or lies from witnesses. There are excellent legal analyses of this online, but why bother linking them when you won’t read them? And your Ukraine denial is already destroyed with the stuff Lev Parnas just brought out - he was Rudy’s bagman and there’s going to be much more out in the next 36-48 hours.

‘You guys’ makes no sense - yes 80% of Dems don’t like 45, but I’m an Independent, and the figure is close to 55% for those in my category. Maybe electing someone with better ethics would have yielded a different result in support, hey who knows? The GOP disapproval numbers will climb too as more of the Parnas revelations come out. The dude might be shady, but ‘documents don’t have a reputation’, as they say.

There’s nothing aggravating about any of this to people who are not failed patriots and want the Constitution’s articles carried out. It’s only aggravating to those triggered by what a screw-up their hero is turning out to be.


Instead of focusing on prescription drug costs, immigration, the economy, this continuous talk of impeachment is drowning out all of the more important subjects which Democrats always ran on and won.

This is 2016 all over again, news cycles dominated by Anti-Trump mantra. Not a winning combination.
I suggest Democrats do a road trip across the mid-west. Perhaps they can re-focus, that might help.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:50 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of course it is, you folks been at this since the moment he was elected. First with the Russian collusion hoax, then Stormy and now with Ukraine.

But what makes this most aggravating is we are less than a year from an election, and you wish to cancel him out even before voters have a chance to make their decisions themselves, telling us how stupid we are to elect this guy. Good luck with that.


Collusion was not a hoax - the words in the report are ‘did not establish’ - that does not mean innocence, it means loose ends in the investigation were not tied due to incomplete investigation or lies from witnesses. There are excellent legal analyses of this online, but why bother linking them when you won’t read them? And your Ukraine denial is already destroyed with the stuff Lev Parnas just brought out - he was Rudy’s bagman and there’s going to be much more out in the next 36-48 hours.

‘You guys’ makes no sense - yes 80% of Dems don’t like 45, but I’m an Independent, and the figure is close to 55% for those in my category. Maybe electing someone with better ethics would have yielded a different result in support, hey who knows? The GOP disapproval numbers will climb too as more of the Parnas revelations come out. The dude might be shady, but ‘documents don’t have a reputation’, as they say.

There’s nothing aggravating about any of this to people who are not failed patriots and want the Constitution’s articles carried out. It’s only aggravating to those triggered by what a screw-up their hero is turning out to be.


Instead of focusing on prescription drug costs, immigration, the economy, this continuous talk of impeachment is drowning out all of the more important subjects which Democrats always ran on and won.

This is 2016 all over again, news cycles dominated by Anti-Trump mantra. Not a winning combination.
I suggest Democrats do a road trip across the mid-west. Perhaps they can re-focus, that might help.


Okay, let’s play the non sequitur game: if getting kitchen table issues back on the floors of Congress were a major priority for the WH, why not prove the inquiry wrong and produce the four witnesses not allowed to testify? They can exonerate POTUS in just a couple hours, mea culpa from Pelosi, and the business of legislation can get back under way, right? Oh well. Guess it’s not that important for the whole country to see it was all a hoax.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:54 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Collusion was not a hoax - the words in the report are ‘did not establish’ - that does not mean innocence, it means loose ends in the investigation were not tied due to incomplete investigation or lies from witnesses. There are excellent legal analyses of this online, but why bother linking them when you won’t read them? And your Ukraine denial is already destroyed with the stuff Lev Parnas just brought out - he was Rudy’s bagman and there’s going to be much more out in the next 36-48 hours.

‘You guys’ makes no sense - yes 80% of Dems don’t like 45, but I’m an Independent, and the figure is close to 55% for those in my category. Maybe electing someone with better ethics would have yielded a different result in support, hey who knows? The GOP disapproval numbers will climb too as more of the Parnas revelations come out. The dude might be shady, but ‘documents don’t have a reputation’, as they say.

There’s nothing aggravating about any of this to people who are not failed patriots and want the Constitution’s articles carried out. It’s only aggravating to those triggered by what a screw-up their hero is turning out to be.


Instead of focusing on prescription drug costs, immigration, the economy, this continuous talk of impeachment is drowning out all of the more important subjects which Democrats always ran on and won.

This is 2016 all over again, news cycles dominated by Anti-Trump mantra. Not a winning combination.
I suggest Democrats do a road trip across the mid-west. Perhaps they can re-focus, that might help.


Okay, let’s play the non sequitur game: if getting kitchen table issues back on the floors of Congress were a major priority for the WH, why not prove the inquiry wrong and produce the four witnesses not allowed to testify? They can exonerate POTUS in just a couple hours, mea culpa from Pelosi, and the business of legislation can get back under way, right? Oh well. Guess it’s not that important for the whole country to see it was all a hoax.


2 years of Mueller wasn't sufficient?

If they instead focused on the real things, but its impossible for these coastal island elites, they can't just see that in middle America almost no one is worried about impeachment.

Dems will win CA, NY, and the other liberal bastions, but they need the middle of the country. if they keep at it with their hate towards Trump they just won't win.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:57 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

Instead of focusing on prescription drug costs, immigration, the economy, this continuous talk of impeachment is drowning out all of the more important subjects which Democrats always ran on and won.

This is 2016 all over again, news cycles dominated by Anti-Trump mantra. Not a winning combination.
I suggest Democrats do a road trip across the mid-west. Perhaps they can re-focus, that might help.


Okay, let’s play the non sequitur game: if getting kitchen table issues back on the floors of Congress were a major priority for the WH, why not prove the inquiry wrong and produce the four witnesses not allowed to testify? They can exonerate POTUS in just a couple hours, mea culpa from Pelosi, and the business of legislation can get back under way, right? Oh well. Guess it’s not that important for the whole country to see it was all a hoax.


2 years of Mueller wasn't sufficient?

If they instead focused on the real things, but its impossible for these coastal island elites, they can't just see that in middle America almost no one is worried about impeachment.

Dems will win CA, NY, and the other liberal bastions, but they need the middle of the country. if they keep at it with their hate towards Trump they just won't win.


You failed to answer - try again.

And your information is wrong:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/m ... for-trial/

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:00 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Okay, let’s play the non sequitur game: if getting kitchen table issues back on the floors of Congress were a major priority for the WH, why not prove the inquiry wrong and produce the four witnesses not allowed to testify? They can exonerate POTUS in just a couple hours, mea culpa from Pelosi, and the business of legislation can get back under way, right? Oh well. Guess it’s not that important for the whole country to see it was all a hoax.


2 years of Mueller wasn't sufficient?

If they instead focused on the real things, but its impossible for these coastal island elites, they can't just see that in middle America almost no one is worried about impeachment.

Dems will win CA, NY, and the other liberal bastions, but they need the middle of the country. if they keep at it with their hate towards Trump they just won't win.


You failed to answer - try again.

And your information is wrong:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/m ... for-trial/


Try polls on the states that matter,

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment ... 28c49.html

Impeaching Trump is unpopular in key election states


By the numbers: In a dozen October and November polls on impeachment in battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin, an average of 44% of those surveyed supported impeachment, with 51% opposed, according to the Post.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:03 pm
by Aaron747
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

2 years of Mueller wasn't sufficient?

If they instead focused on the real things, but its impossible for these coastal island elites, they can't just see that in middle America almost no one is worried about impeachment.

Dems will win CA, NY, and the other liberal bastions, but they need the middle of the country. if they keep at it with their hate towards Trump they just won't win.


You failed to answer - try again.

And your information is wrong:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/m ... for-trial/


Try polls on the states that matter,

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment ... 28c49.html

Impeaching Trump is unpopular in key election states


By the numbers: In a dozen October and November polls on impeachment in battleground states like Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin, an average of 44% of those surveyed supported impeachment, with 51% opposed, according to the Post.


You failed to answer again. And with a 3% margin of error, 51% opposed is hardly a significant majority. Try again.

Re: The Impeachment Hearings

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:08 pm
by AirWorthy99
Aaron747 wrote:
why not prove the inquiry wrong and produce the four witnesses not allowed to testify? They can exonerate POTUS in just a couple hours, mea culpa from Pelosi, and the business of legislation can get back under way, right? Oh well. Guess it’s not that important for the whole country to see it was all a hoax.


You could have taken them to court, again, they decided not to. In any case you are very close to getting your witnesses on the Senate trial, I hope this can put this to rest, but I doubt it, they will still find excuses to keep at this instead of the REAL issues.