Null



Sign in to follow this  
Grumps

Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

Recommended Posts





I do find it "odd" (stated loosely) that the Democrats are trying every way they can to  "create" an avenue to impeach when nearly the same thing happened with Biden as Vice President. Quib Pro Quo is also something that has happened throughout history in some form or fashion as a bargaining chip, though rarely have we seen it going against a presumable candidate for president (Biden is a hot mess to begin with). 

It will be interesting to see where this leads. Either way it proves the Swamp is alive and well and we are all a bunch of flies to the elites in DC.

  • Like 5
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 10:05 AM, bigbird said:

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.

You are correct many Presidents have played around while in the White House. Clinton did it with an employee and also was caught lying under oath but I still agree with you it was not an impeachable offense and politics is what led to it. I was against it at the time and still think it was wrong thing to do. 

I also believe that the Trump impeachment is about politics. I have no idea if Trump was doing what the Democrats say he was doing but I do know they have not provided any hard evidence as to what they are claiming. Obstruction of Justice because he told his people not to talk he invoked Executive privileged many Presidents including Obama have done that before. What Congress has always done is taken it to court and Judges have ruled sometimes the President wins sometimes Congress does. The fact that Congress has not taken this step proves this is a bogus claim. Impeachment is serious you don't do it based on a timeline but you follow the precedent of getting the court's opinion. If they took the step it would delay the impeachment process but you would get a Jurist's view if the Judge or maybe even Supreme Court if  it got that far rules against Trump and he didn't allow them to talk then Congress has a point and should proceed , if Trump then allows them to testify there is no obstruction, but if they ruled in Trump's favor they lose the basic reason behind the impeachment. 

The Democrats don't want to find out what the court would rule because though they have sided with Congress a few times in the past in the majority of cases they give the President a lot of latitude.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I do find it "odd" (stated loosely) that the Democrats are trying every way they can to  "create" an avenue to impeach when nearly the same thing happened with Biden as Vice President. Quib Pro Quo is also something that has happened throughout history in some form or fashion as a bargaining chip, though rarely have we seen it going against a presumable candidate for president (Biden is a hot mess to begin with). 

It will be interesting to see where this leads. Either way it proves the Swamp is alive and well and we are all a bunch of flies to the elites in DC.

Biden was pursuing official U.S. policy.   Trump was pursuing personal political advantage. 

HUGE difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, homersapien said:

Biden was pursuing official U.S. policy.   Trump was pursuing personal political advantage. 

HUGE difference.

Even if Biden had alternative motives, they were parallel to official US interests and he’s way too smart to blatantly tell anyone anything different. Trump isn’t this smart, obviously. He didn’t even care about US business related to Ukraine. He exposed himself with his ego. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Biden was pursuing official U.S. policy.   Trump was pursuing personal political advantage. 

HUGE difference.

So Hunter Biden getting a $50K/month bribe was official U.S. policy? That's a jacked up world you live in...

The idea that you could even write that with a straight face tells droves and droves about you and where your heart and mind are in politics. Biden was doing what was right for the Bidens. I dont think any adult in America thinks different. its the reason the Heinz kid ran the hell away from the job.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So Hunter Biden getting a $50K/month bribe was official U.S. policy? That's a jacked up world you live in...

The idea that you could even write that with a straight face tells droves and droves about you and where your heart and mind are in politics. Biden was doing what was right for the Bidens. I dont think any adult in America thinks different. its the reason the Heinz kid ran the hell away from the job.

Once again you completely miss-characterize my point.  (You do this a lot.:no:)  And that miss-characterization is based on unfounded assumptions.

U.S. policy was to oppose and eliminate corruption - personified by Shokin - in Ukraine.  Getting rid of Shokin as consistent with U.S. policy.

I agree that Biden's "allowing" his son to take the Burisma job was a fatal, stupid and unforced error.  In fact, that's the one and only reason I cannot support Biden for the nomination.

One could reasonably assume that Hunter Biden was placed on the Burisma's board for appearances sake.  Burisma apparently felt that image would be beneficial, when in fact, it had just the opposite effect - the appearance was one of a conflict of interest.  Why Joe Biden would tolerate that is baffling.

At the time, Joe Biden's other son Beau was dying from cancer and it's been reported that Joe said he just didn't have the "band width" to deal with Hunter's issues at the same time.  (Hunter is also an alcoholic and drug addict.)  I don't know if that's valid and I don't want to pass judgement on how someone else deals with such personal family issues, but I figure if someone wants to be president, they need to be able to deal with such a situation. Joe Biden didn't deal with the appearance problem Hunter's job with Burisma presented, so in my mind, that disqualifies him as a candidate for POTUS, regardless if he couldn't handle it at the time or simply chose not to.

But nevertheless, Hunter Biden's job with Burisma, has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIDEN'S COMMENTS AND POSITION REGARDING CORRUPTION IN GENERAL AND GETTING RID OF SHOKIN IN PARTICULAR.

In fact, Shokin was not investigating Burisma at the time and certainly not Hunter Biden.  One could argue that if Joe Biden was trying to protect Hunter's job with Burisma he would not have been trying to keep Shokin in place.

Bottom line, Biden's comments as V.P.- as reflected in the notorious video - to remove Shokin WERE consistent with U.S. policy (along with the policy many other global and non-US government institutions.)  Based on the evidence (none), there is no reason to assume Hunter Biden's job was a factor in Joe Biden's position.  This is reinforced by the fact that removing Shokin would be more likely to threaten Hunter's job than keeping him in place.

So if you want to preach about the suitability or desirability of Joe Biden as presidential candidate, fine, but at least get your facts straight.  Don't just buy into this Hunter Biden obfuscation that is being sold by the Trump supporters.

Your willingness to run with this false Trump/GOP narrative regarding Biden's effort to get rid of Shokin is so typical of your political nihilism - if not schizophrenia - which you demonstrate frequently on this forum.  Or perhaps some things are just too nuanced for you to grasp.

 

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Once again you completely miss-characterize my point.  (You do this a lot.:no:)  And that miss-characterization is based on unfounded assumptions.

U.S. policy was to oppose and eliminate corruption - personified by Shokin - in Ukraine.

I agree that Biden's "allowing" his son to take the Burisma job was a fatal, stupid and unforced error.  In fact, that's the one and only reason I cannot support Biden for the nomination.

One could reasonably assume that Hunter Biden was placed on the Burisma's board for appearances sake.  Burisma apparently felt that image would be beneficial, when in fact, it had just the opposite effect - the appearance was one of a conflict of interest.  Why Joe Biden would tolerate that is baffling.

At the time, Joe Biden's other son Beau was dying from cancer and it's been reported that Joe said he just didn't have the "band width" to deal with Hunter's issues at the same time.  (Hunter is also an alcoholic and drug addict.)  I don't know if that's valid and I don't want to pass judgement on how someone else deals with such personal family issues, but I figure if someone wants to be president, they need to be able to deal with such a situation. Joe Biden didn't deal with the appearance problem Hunter's job with Burisma presented, so in my mind, that disqualifies him as a candidate for POTUS, regardless if he couldn't handle it at the time or simply chose not to.

But nevertheless, Hunter Biden's job with Burisma, has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIDEN'S COMMENTS AND POSITION REGARDING CORRUPTION IN GENERAL AND GETTING RID OF SHOKIN IN PARTICULAR.

In fact, Shokin was not investigating Burisma at the time and certainly not Hunter Biden.  One could argue that if Joe Biden was trying to protect Hunter's job with Burisma he would not have been trying to keep Shokin in place.

Bottom line, Biden's comments as V.P.- as reflected in the notorious video - to remove Shokin WERE consistent with U.S. policy (along with the policy many other global and non-US government institutions.)  Based on the evidence (none), there is no reason to assume Hunter Biden's job was a factor in Joe Biden's position.  This is reinforced by the fact that removing Shokin would be more likely to threaten Hunter's job than keeping him in place.

So if you want to preach about the suitability or desirability of Joe Biden as presidential candidate, fine, but at least get your facts straight.  Don't just buy into this Hunter Biden obfuscation that is being sold by the Trump supporters.

Your willingness to run with this false Trump/GOP narrative regarding Biden's effort to get rid of Shokin is so typical of your political nihilism - if not schizophrenia - which you demonstrate frequently on this forum.  Or perhaps some things are just too nuanced for you to grasp.

I never said one word about Shokin nor Corruption in Ukraine. I was talking strictly about Biden alone. How do you eliminate corruption and let your son take a $600K a year job? So, as afar as Official policy, that doesnt match up.

  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I never said one word about Shokin nor Corruption in Ukraine. I was talking strictly about Biden alone. How do you eliminate corruption and let your son take a $600K a year job? So, as afar as Official policy, that doesnt match up.

No, you were trying to ridicule me as if Hunter Biden's job made some sort of significant difference in how I should feel about Trump's behavior. 

You posted:

So Hunter Biden getting a $50K/month bribe was official U.S. policy? That's a jacked up world you live in...

The idea that you could even write that with a straight face tells droves and droves about you and where your heart and mind are in politics.

 You were being a presumptuous jerk, pretty much like you've always been.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 3:36 PM, 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

That is correct.  However if there is evidence similar to what happened with Nixon when the President uses executive privilege as they all have done in the past. Congress goes to the courts to decide as has been mentioned by many.  Than there are three things that can happen:

1. Court eventually Rules in Congress favor and President allows his people to speak - No obstruction then but possibility information comes out that proves Trump wrong or proves Trump right or proves nothing.

2. Trump wins and then there is no obstruction

3. Trump loses and still does not let his people speak - Congress than has a legitimate case for Obstruction of Justice and I would support that.

Because Congress did not follow normal procedures of taking it to courts to decide if this was or was not a viable use of Executive privilege they don't have a leg to stand on. in bringing this charge. By not following standard procedure they are the one abusing their power. We have three branches of government for a reason.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you didn’t answer the question. Was Hunter Biden getting $600k per year official policy?  
 

No one in America thinks so. Biden was doing what pols do, getting wealthy taking a bribe. 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 7:58 PM, TexasTiger said:

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 ... "

That is correct it says they don't have absolute immunity it does not say they don't have any immunity. Each case is different that is why in some cases the President has won when using executive privilege and in other congress has won. Not going to court and getting a ruling is where Congress dropped the ball.

Edited by AuburnNTexas
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

That is correct it says they don't have absolute immunity it does not say they don't have any immunity. Each case is different that is why in some cases the President has won when using executive privilege and in other congress has won. Not going to court and getting a ruling is where Congress dropped the ball.

Exactly, and it's what makes this whole thing a political sham no matter what Trump did or didn't do.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bigbird said:

Exactly, and it's what makes this whole thing a political sham no matter what Trump did or didn't do.

That’s crap. Facts are facts and they’re ample for any open minded person paying attention.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s crap. Facts are facts and they’re ample for any open minded person paying attention.

If it's so clear, take it to the Court and have them rule in your favor. They won't for a reason. Piss and moan all you want about it, the Dems dropped the ball.

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bigbird said:

If it's so clear, take it to the Court and have them rule in your favor. They won't for a reason. Piss and moan all you want about it, the Dems dropped the ball.

The reason is months and years of delay. There’s ample evidence without it. Engage it like it’s . football. You’ll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The reason is months and years of delay. There’s ample evidence without it. Engage it like it’s . football. You’ll see.

Engage politics like football?...I think I understand now! Lol....I honestly feel you should reserve all your skepticism for politics. Disengage some and you'll see how ridiculous people get over it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The reason is months and years of delay. There’s ample evidence without it. Engage it like it’s . football. You’ll see.

So skip the process set forth by the Constitution because it's inconvenient to their timeline? Brilliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigbird said:

So skip the process set forth by the Constitution because it's inconvenient to their timeline? Brilliant

Now you’re just making crap up— brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bigbird said:

Exactly, and it's what makes this whole thing a political sham no matter what Trump did or didn't do.

This, coming from someone who thinks the idea of considering the facts objectively is a laughing matter. :rolleyes:   Figures.

So, in principle, if Trump did exactly what he is being impeached for (holding back on military aid important to U.S. security in order to coerce another country to announce an investigation of his personal political opponent), his impeachment would be a "political sham"???

Is that what you really think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bigbird said:

So skip the process set forth by the Constitution because it's inconvenient to their timeline? Brilliant

Can you be specific?  What process are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This, coming from someone who thinks the idea of considering the facts objectively is a laughing matter. :rolleyes:   Figures.

So, in principle, if Trump did exactly what he is being impeached for (holding back on military aid important to U.S. security in order to coerce another country to announce an investigation of his personal political opponent), his impeachment would be a "political sham"???

Is that what you really think?

 

That's not what he's being impeached for. The articles are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

So what I think is that if there is a conflict between two branches,( in this case the use of executive privilege and the testimony of those near Trump) then they should take it to the Court and have a ruling on it. That's how it works. Are you saying you that they shouldn't seek the Court's ruling?

If the court ruled that the privilege doesn't apply and Trump continued to block their testimony, then it is clear that he would be obstructing Congress. As is, it's just political wailing. The process is there to make any question have a clear answer. Why skip the process of taking it to the courts? Why would the left not want a clear ruling that they can claim and sway the public?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Can you be specific?  What process are you referring to? 

Seperation of powers and the process of checks and balances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this