Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Are you saying that there is actual 100% bonafide proof of this or are we back to relying on hear say again? There is a document saying this, sigfned or with forensics saying Trump etal knew of it? There is a document ordering et al to work toward that end? Did this actually happen? Was money withheld until AFTER dirt was found for the President? Or are we just discussing more hearsay and divined intuitive feelings?

Do your homework.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

13 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You know, the good people of this world dont want to live in that world. You know where deception is okay as long as it meets some technical parlance that is so extraneous that no one really cares anymore. If you want to n ow how we got Trump as President, I think you just found the methodology.  You know where business fraud isnt fraud. Where filing bankruptcies arent really bad, they are good business decisions (still cant believe NOLA wrote that on a public forum). Where publicly cheating on your spouse is okay and dumping them isnt a character flaw if the new babe is 10 years younger. Basically the foundation for the Trump Presidency was laid during the Clinton WH. 

Yes, Republicans decided to take Clinton’s worse qualities to the nth degree, declare Trump the Chosen One ordained by God and embrace Putin and abandon our allies because Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it because that had never happened before in recorded history.

[DKW 86 7,411]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do your homework.

Exactly what I thought. 
Hope you dont get too tired of "Do-Nothing Dems and Witch-Hunts" in the next year. 

[DKW 86 7,411]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, Republicans decided to take Clinton’s worse qualities to the nth degree, declare Trump the Chosen One ordained by God and embrace Putin and abandon our allies because Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it because that had never happened before in recorded history.

Big Difference, Captn Obvious, they had a cum stained dress proving it. Not a bunch of innuendo and hearsay etc. Butthurt is not presentable in court. 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Big Difference, Captn Obvious, they had a cum stained dress proving it. Not a bunch of innuendo and hearsay etc. Butthurt is not presentable in court. 

I get that it was the kind of thing you found easier to comprehend.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

12 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Exactly what I thought. 
Hope you dont get too tired of "Do-Nothing Dems and Witch-Hunts" in the next year. 

Dems have sent a lot of legislation to Mitch’s desk. But you keep parroting Trump’s talking points while pretending to be bothered by him comrade.

[bigbird 60,368]

Do you think Clinton was the first president to mess around with a mistress in the White House?

Were his actions unprecedented? No. He was investigated and impeached due to politics.

[homersapien 11,353]

On 11/26/2019 at 1:18 PM, 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.   

Only after the whistle-blower report was released.  They got caught and the jig was up.

 

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.

It certainly would be if the POTUS was unilaterally holding it up contingent on Lebanon publicly announcing an investigation into his likely Democratic opponent in 2020.

 

 

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.

What we have is a lot of testimony relating to what Trump's personal lawyer and various others - in the Trump administration - were saying to Ukraine.  Plus a transcript of a phone call in which Trump himself lays out his "requests" while said aid was being held up.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 1:18 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

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.

Most of the witnesses who can testify directly to Trump's will are being prevented by Trump from testifying.  Why do you suppose that is?

Hopefully the courts will ultimately require their testimony but I have my doubts.

Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer and directly represents him.  He's been pretty clear about Trump's intent.   Then there's the phone call call transcript as well as Mulvaney's admission.

Regardless, there is more than enough evidence for the House of Representative to do their duty and conduct an impeachment investigation.

If the Republicans who control the Senate decide to acquit Trump, that's within their power to do so.  And I expect that's what will happen.  But that's to the their shame.  It just illustrates how far we have declined as a country in our ethical standards.

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,

Guilty as charged.  I have the sense to recognize a lying, amoral, narcissistic con man when I see one. He is totally unfit to be president and he is doing a lot of damage to our country which will be difficult to reverse..

but just like in a criminal trial you don't convict based on personal animosity you do it on cold hard facts.

I agree.

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.

It's not for witnesses to rule on the law.  That's the judges job.  Witnesses are authorized and required only to provide testimony on what they personally witnessed.

Asking them to make such an overall ruling based on their limited (by definition) personal knowledge was an unfair, politically-motivated trick to get the statements out there for the purpose of influencing the public, who mostly don't know any better. Those comments are meaningless in the context of the impeachment investigation and subsequent.

 

 

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

Tex, I would still rather have a couple of beers with you than 99% on this board. You at least are passionate and actually think and care about things other than the Talking Points. 

Happy Thanksgiving Old Man....

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

Tex, I would still rsather have a couple of beers with you than 99% on this board. You at least are passionate and actually think and care about things other than the Talking points. 

Happy Thanksgiving Old Man....

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re either lying, crazy or stupid. You investigate with the DOJ, not your personal attorney tying a litany of favors to merely announcing an investigation you don’t really care happens or not. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why spin it? I know, the reality is too obvious.

Whats obvious? No objectivity in your response, none, nada. Blinders plus. You are an idiot, a clown, a shill. WTFU. 

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!

[AUFAN78 3,890]

39 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, Republicans decided to take Clinton’s worse qualities to the nth degree, declare Trump the Chosen One ordained by God and embrace Putin and abandon our allies because Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it because that had never happened before in recorded history.

Homes ain't the only one on drugs today. Good grief.  

Tex needs a dose of tryptophan. 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

19 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whats obvious? No objectivity in your response, none, nada. Blinders plus. You are an idiot, a clown, a shill. WTFU. 

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!

You’re a typical Trumplican.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re a typical Trumplican.

No, far from a Trumplican. I just know a guy in need of a pacifier when I see one. Regardless, hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.

[homersapien 11,353]

Well, so much for creating a thread dedicated to substantive argument instead of childish ad hominem attacks.

[bigbird 60,368]

So...moving away from "bribery" and now moving towards "abuse of power"? The moving target is very transparent and telling. The longer this goes the more deaf people are becoming.  

[DKW 86 7,411]

14 hours ago, bigbird said:

So...moving away from "bribery" and now moving towards "abuse of power"? The moving target is very transparent and telling. The longer this goes the more deaf people are becoming.  

Hate to tell you I told you so, but I did. Nadler, possibly the worst spokesperson in DC is leading this. He has all the warmth and charm of cold coffee.

[EagleEye67 1,937]

This impeachment "inquiry" is a Demo disaster, as anyone with a functioning synapse  could see.

 

As always....Trump plays you progtards for fools.   Enjoy

[bigbird 60,368]

David Brooks: Given Current Impeachment Poll Numbers, "I'm Not Sure What Will Have Been Achieved"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/30/david_brooks_given_current_impeachment_poll_numbers_im_not_sure_what_will_have_been_achieved.html

[bigbird 60,368]

On obstruction, I would encourage you to think about this. In Nixon, it did go to the courts, and Nixon lost. And that was the reason Nixon resigned. He resigned a few days after the Supreme Court ruled against him in that critical case. But in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. It didn't say you had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again. It said: "We've heard your arguments, we've heard Congress's arguments, and you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress."

What that did for the Judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. It wasn't the Rodino extreme position that only you decide. Recently there are some rulings against President Trump, including a ruling involving Don McGahn.

Mr. Chairman, I testified before you a few months ago. We had an exchange and I encouraged you to bring those actions. You said you thought you'd win. You did... That's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues an order. And unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction.

But I can't emphasize this enough and I'll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power.

You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts at the other two branches. What comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/04/turley_to_congress_if_you_make_going_to_the_courts_an_abuse_of_power_it_is_your_abuse_of_power.html

 

 

Turley came across as rational and unbiased.

[bigbird 60,368]

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/turley-says-there-isnt-enough-evidence-to-impeach/#

[bigbird 60,368]

Any thoughts to this statement?

The Executive Branch’s longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President’s immediate advisers are absolutely immune from congressional testimonial process. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download&ved=2ahUKEwia2fy_up_mAhUEeKwKHZNaAMoQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw10x05wRqwGkB7_XRMmrGUd

[TexasTiger 12,811]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Any thoughts to this statement?

The Executive Branch’s longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President’s immediate advisers are absolutely immune from congressional testimonial process. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download&ved=2ahUKEwia2fy_up_mAhUEeKwKHZNaAMoQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw10x05wRqwGkB7_XRMmrGUd

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1090566

[bigbird 60,368]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1090566

So do you agree with the statement?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

38 minutes ago, bigbird said:

So do you agree with the statement?

I agree with this one:

It is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist," Jackson said in her ruling.

"Presidents are not kings," she added.

"This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control," Jackson said. "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States ... "