Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 hours ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that Trump should be formally impeached? Probably-Yes.

Do you think that a formal impeachment will result in Trump's removal from office? Not unless there is a smoking gun that so far we have not seen. 

Do yo think that a formal impeachment will ultimately benefit the democrats? In 1998, the Reps Impeached Clinton and lost ground in the 98 Elections. It will help the DNC with the Moonbat part of their base. I dont know and and dont think that there will be much positive impact in the election if there is any at all. The American People are beyond tired of never ending investigations. 

I am telling you now, It will be a year long "Do-Nothing Democrats and Witch Hunts." That is a quick attack that will leave most Democrats trying to explain it. In American Politics, if you are explaining, you are losing.  

[TexasTiger 12,836]

On 11/23/2019 at 9:51 AM, AU64 said:

OMG....offering military aid to a foreign government to do something that a US president wants done?    Please someone find me a president who has not held the possibility of financial aid over the head of other countries to get them to do what he wanted them to do.  The big argument about foreign aid is the "quid pro quo" thing..... the basic argument of many folks that the US should not give aid to countries who are not helpful to us?  

We've "bribed" governments to do all sorts of things we wanted done my entire adult life.    And I've yet to see or hear anyone acknowledge under oath that he or she ever heard the name of Biden mentioned and it's a stretch to even infer that he was talking about one of the Bidens.     And of course to see witnesses back tracking or re-interpreting their testimony?    Nothing but a big circus and Dems might have satisfied their "base" but I doubt many of the famous "undecided" citizens were impressed.  JMO.

Still this ignorant of this situation? SMH

[TexasTiger 12,836]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

I am telling you now, It will be a year long "Do-Nothing Democrats and Witch Hunts." That is a quick attack that will leave most Democrats trying to explain it. In American Politics, if you are explaining, you are losing.  

Who won the Presidency in 2000? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

35 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who won the Presidency in 2000? 

Apples to Oranges. 1998 was an Impeachment and an Election. 2000 was a full two years later and Gore came within 1-2 counties of winning the election as the third installment. 8 years in a row usually means a party swap in the WH. Bush41 only won in 1988 because Dukakis was such an easy opponent. 

[TexasTiger 12,836]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Apples to Oranges. 1998 was an Impeachment and an Election. 2000 was a full two years later and Gore came within 1-2 counties of winning the election as the third installment. 8 years in a row usually means a party swap in the WH. Bush41 only won in 1988 because Dukakis was such an easy opponent. 

Republicans lost a net of 4 seats in the House, none in the Senate. The impact was negligible.

[AU64 10,122]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

US attorneys have said they’ve made cases on mob guys on less evidence than this. 

Mob guys had defense lawyers.....the "inquiry" did not allow reasonable rebuttal or cross examination.  

JMO but you are way off the mark trying to treat the hearing as if it was a trial.   More like a Grand Jury and even with looser standards the committee was not gonna recommend an 'indictment because the majority probably realize that when a "trial" is held in the Senate, most of the "star witnesses" are gonna have to commit perjury to convict the president....or look like fools as they try to explain what they actually heard and saw.....could personally attest to.    

[homersapien 11,367]

21 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Impeachment is very serious to do it you must have irrefutable proof that the president has done something that meets that criteria. Multiple witnesses that had been subpoenaed by the Democrats said they felt uneasy about the way Trump conducted his Foreign Policy but when asked point blank if his actions were corruption, bribery, etc. They said no.  Even the ones who said it (MIGHT) have been said they surmised it from hearsay and what they had read or heard in the news and did not know for sure. 

The other issue was having Adam Schiff run the investigation he is obviously biased as during the Mueller probe he said there was irrefutable evidence that President should be impeached yet he never produced the evidence. He cut off cross examinations of witnesses by the Republicans. He held the Republicans to the agreed time limits for questioning or comments but did not hold himself to the same standards.  During the closed sessions he provided material to the press that was one sided while not allowing the opposition to provide anything to the press.  When some of the transcripts from the closed sessions came out it showed that some of the statements vindicated Trump none of which was shown during his briefings. 

It doesn't matter if after hearing the evidence you believe or don't believe Trump was trying to coerce the Ukraine. People are not convicted or Impeached  in this country on believe they are convicted or Impeached on cold hard irrefutable facts based on what I saw and have read there is supposition but no hard facts. in an impeachment or a trial you have to but your personal biases aside and your verdict to convict or impeach should only be based on cold hard facts. 

Assuming you agree that the premise -withholding military aid as a bribe to coerce Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden - constitutes grounds for impeachment, what are the "hard facts" that are missing from this investigation?

 

[homersapien 11,367]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what’s best.

But a picture also emerged of U.S. diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president, have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view. Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/471643-impeachment-inquiry-its-a-question-of-who-should-run-the-show

So you think the POTUS has the right to coerce an ally to investigate one of his personal political rivals (without any evidence of wrongdoing by that political rival) by unilaterally withholding Congressionally-approved military aid from them?

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Mob guys had defense lawyers.....the "inquiry" did not allow reasonable rebuttal or cross examination.  

JMO but you are way off the mark trying to treat the hearing as if it was a trial.   More like a Grand Jury and even with looser standards the committee was not gonna recommend an 'indictment because the majority probably realize that when a "trial" is held in the Senate, most of the "star witnesses" are gonna have to commit perjury to convict the president....or look like fools as they try to explain what they actually heard and saw.....could personally attest to.    

Not in a grand jury investigation, which is the equivalent of an impeachment investigation. 

And the witnesses were already testifying under oath. They didn't lie about what they heard or experienced.  The testimony was corroborated by multiple witnesses.  Finally, Republicans on the committee had complete access for cross-examination. 

Did you watch the hearing?  I did. 

[alexava 6,973]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what’s best.

But a picture also emerged of U.S. diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president, have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view. Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/471643-impeachment-inquiry-its-a-question-of-who-should-run-the-show

They seem to be perplexed and confused by the president having the three stooges ( Rudy and co. ) running foreign policy behind their backs while trying to maintain a legitimate relationship and follow the law and keep things on the up and up. Then being slammed by this orange faced a**hole that lies every other breath. They were given the authority to run foreign policy and then slighted for playing by the ******* rules. We are being led by a con man. 

[TexasTiger 12,836]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Mob guys had defense lawyers.....the "inquiry" did not allow reasonable rebuttal or cross examination.  

JMO but you are way off the mark trying to treat the hearing as if it was a trial.   More like a Grand Jury and even with looser standards the committee was not gonna recommend an 'indictment because the majority probably realize that when a "trial" is held in the Senate, most of the "star witnesses" are gonna have to commit perjury to convict the president....or look like fools as they try to explain what they actually heard and saw.....could personally attest to.    

Trump has attorneys. The House inquiry is like a grand jury. Trump’s guys, and Trump, refuse to testify because they know they’d either  implicate Trump or be on the hook for lying to Congress. The witnesses who spoke, with the exception of Sondland’s conflicting testimony, don’t seem concerned about legal concerns.

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Assuming you agree that the premise -withholding military aid as a bribe to coerce Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden - constitutes grounds for impeachment, what are the "hard facts" that are missing from this investigation?

 

You are correct it was delayed but it was delivered and there was no investigation started. Bottom line is Military aid was delivered.   Right now the administration is holding up Military aid to Lebanon whether they should or not is debatable but just like with Ukraine it is not an impeachable offense. Basically what they have on Trump is conjecture. The conjecture is he would not release military aid until an investigation was started.  The reality is Military aid was released and no investigation started.

Basically you want to impeach him because you believe that was his intent you may even be right I don't think so but I don't know but I do know you don't Impeach somebody based on your belief of what you think he was trying to do you need tangible evidence. You have made it abundantly clear that you despise Trump and you have the right to have that opinion as do the myriad of people who share that opinion, but just like in a criminal trial you don't convict based on personal animosity you do it on cold hard facts. As I stated earlier the Prosecutions witnesses when asked straight out if Trump's action were Bribery, Quid Pro Quo, or collusion said no.  That should end the case unless more evidence is discovered.

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Republicans lost a net of 4 seats in the House, none in the Senate. The impact was negligible.

They didnt pick up either Genius...They wasted all that political capital for...nothing.

[TexasTiger 12,836]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

They didnt pick up either Genius...They wasted all that political capital for...nothing.

Assuming they acted on principle, that’s why you do it. They weren’t.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

So you think the POTUS has the right to coerce an ally to investigate one of his personal political rivals (without any evidence of wrongdoing by that political rival) by unilaterally withholding Congressionally-approved military aid from them?

The POTUS has the right to investigate corruption. If a political opponent is caught up in said corruption, shame on them.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, alexava said:

They seem to be perplexed and confused by the president having the three stooges ( Rudy and co. ) running foreign policy behind their backs while trying to maintain a legitimate relationship and follow the law and keep things on the up and up. Then being slammed by this orange faced a**hole that lies every other breath. They were given the authority to run foreign policy and then slighted for playing by the ******* rules. We are being led by a con man. 

They seem to be pissed POTUS is investigating corruption that may indict them and/or their constituents. Bosses change, rules change, deal with it or suffer the consequences. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You are correct it was delayed but it was delivered and there was no investigation started. Bottom line is Military aid was delivered.   Right now the administration is holding up Military aid to Lebanon whether they should or not is debatable but just like with Ukraine it is not an impeachable offense. Basically what they have on Trump is conjecture. The conjecture is he would not release military aid until an investigation was started.  The reality is Military aid was released and no investigation started.

Basically you want to impeach him because you believe that was his intent you may even be right I don't think so but I don't know but I do know you don't Impeach somebody based on your belief of what you think he was trying to do you need tangible evidence. You have made it abundantly clear that you despise Trump and you have the right to have that opinion as do the myriad of people who share that opinion, but just like in a criminal trial you don't convict based on personal animosity you do it on cold hard facts. As I stated earlier the Prosecutions witnesses when asked straight out if Trump's action were Bribery, Quid Pro Quo, or collusion said no.  That should end the case unless more evidence is discovered.

While not wanting to admit this openly, unless they have far more, this is looking like a thought crime. You can’t remove or jail people for thought crimes otherwise we would al be in jail. 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

They seem to be pissed POTUS is investigating corruption that may indict them and/or their constituents. Bosses change, rules change, deal with it or suffer the consequences. 

Horshit. “ They” includes several people. Most non partisan and one who gave trump campaign a MILLION effing dollars and was appointed by trump himself. You and trump don’t get to call them “never trumpers “ and let on like the witnesses are Democratic witch hunters. They all saw an amateur shitshow brewing and told the truth to save their own hides or to vindicate their own ass. 

There may not be enough democrats and reasonable republicans to remove him from office. and maybe no an actual direct recording of trump using aid or meetings or other us assets to get political help. But we have all heard enough to know for a fact that’s exactly what he was doing. Spin it how you wish. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Assuming they acted on principle, that’s why you do it. They weren’t.

So, lying under oath, perjury, obstruction, all of this proven in a courtroom was what? 

[TexasTiger 12,836]

39 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

So, lying under oath, perjury, obstruction, all of this proven in a courtroom was what? 

What courtroom? What trial?

If they remotely cared about those things in relation to sex, wouldn’t they be appalled at Trump? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What courtroom? What trial?

If they remotely cared about those things in relation to sex, wouldn’t they be appalled at Trump? 

UuUhhhh are you feeling okay? 
and what does perjury and obstruction have to do with sex? 

[TexasTiger 12,836]

24 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

UuUhhhh are you feeling okay? 
and what does perjury and obstruction have to do with sex? 

You can’t answer the question?

[DKW 86 7,419]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.^[1]

[TexasTiger 12,836]

6 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.^[1]

That was an indictment by Congress, not a finding in a Courtroom.

“So, lying under oath, perjury, obstruction, all of this proven in a courtroom was what? “

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

Horshit. “ They” includes several people. Most non partisan and one who gave trump campaign a MILLION effing dollars and was appointed by trump himself. You and trump don’t get to call them “never trumpers “ and let on like the witnesses are Democratic witch hunters. They all saw an amateur shitshow brewing and told the truth to save their own hides or to vindicate their own ass. 

There may not be enough democrats and reasonable republicans to remove him from office. and maybe no an actual direct recording of trump using aid or meetings or other us assets to get political help. But we have all heard enough to know for a fact that’s exactly what he was doing. Spin it how you wish. 

You're quite gullible Alex. Non partisan? Might want to check that. The Ambassador that gave a million dollars stated emphatically that Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, but rather they stick to their commitment to investigate corruption.  I have no doubt they saw a shitshow. In fact, they may be proven complicit in time with the Shiff fiasco. 

Trump will or will not be removed based on facts, not some made up bull Sh$# from a butthurt bunch of juveniles. 

No spin necessary. I'm no desperate juvenile.