‘It’s open season on the president’: Anonymous op-ed unleashes fresh West Wing meltdown

[RockyTop85]

We hopefully will know one way or the other before then.

This year has been crazy though, so who knows, maybe by January 20, 2021?

The members of the electoral college cast their votes on December 14.

Anybody pretending the “result“ is anything other than a projection, prior to that date, is tacitly saying that Hillary won in 2016.

 

[37L1]

The members of the electoral college cast their votes on December 14.

Anybody pretending the “result“ is anything other than a projection prior to that date is tacitly saying that Hillary won in 2016.

Even if a state or states "electors" have yet to be confirmed by ballot tabulation?

 

[OHvol40]

Why not dig all that stuff up when the House made its "inquiry"? I mean, aren't you supposed to have a solid case before you bring it to trial? You don't go forward with stuff you can't prove, and when what you do have, can't even make it an impeachable offense, do you still go forward "hoping for the best?" I guess everyone must have been in a hurry or something?

If it is serious enough for impeachment, it damn well better be serious enough to have the facts in hand before proceeding, not a bunch of "we need to interview more witnesses."

Whatever they had prepared, whoever we had to hear from wasn’t allowed to be heard. The case was compelling, but we all know that it doesn’t matter what the case was when it got to Mitch’s chamber. It could be a video of trump eating babies with eyewitnesses. We’d still be sitting here today listening to the turtle brag about how his greatest accomplishment was getting 3 justices in Trump’s term.

 

[37L1]

Whatever they had prepared, whoever we had to hear from wasn’t allowed to be heard. The case was compelling, but we all know that it doesn’t matter what the case was when it got to Mitch’s chamber. It could be a video of trump eating babies with eyewitnesses. We’d still be sitting here today listening to the turtle brag about how his greatest accomplishment was getting 3 justices in Trump’s term.

And, did the House allow this same free access to question "witnesses" that Schiff and friends enjoyed?

 

[OHvol40]

And, did the House allow this same free access to question "witnesses" that Schiff and friends enjoyed?

I’m pretty certain that members from both parties got to question witnesses.

 

[37L1]

I’m pretty certain that members from both parties got to question witnesses.

Really, look up Schiff's secret interviews @Google. There was even an attempt by the Republicans trying to enter it.

Are you still "pretty certain"?

 

[RockyTop85]

Even if a state or states "electors" have yet to be confirmed by ballot tabulation?

As far as I know, that has never happened before. The biggest cluster**** in American electoral history was decided on December 12 and the electoral college still voted on time.

 

[37L1]

As far as I know, that has never happened before. The biggest cluster**** in American electoral history was decided on December 12 and the electoral college still voted on time.

Would that be 2000 "hanging chad" with SCOTUS involved? Could we be going there again?

 

[RockyTop85]

Would that be 2000 "hanging chad" with SCOTUS involved? Could we be going there again?

Is there any indication of that, other than a flurry of lawsuits filed by state-level GOP to try to prevent votes from being counted?

Despite the liberal panic, it seems pretty clear that SCOTUS is going to let states do what they want and step in when the federal government or federal courts try to get involved.

Which makes sense, because the constitution leaves that authority to the states, IIRC.

 

[37L1]

Is there any indication of that, other than a flurry of lawsuits filed by state-level GOP to try to prevent votes from being counted?

Despite the liberal panic, it seems pretty clear that SCOTUS is going to let states do what they want and step in when the federal government or federal courts try to get involved.

Which makes sense, because the constitution leaves that authority to the states, IIRC.

There may be lawsuits by state level-Dem to try and get votes counted after the deadlines if there are still votes coming in/uncounted and postmarked by election day.

"Oh, look, we just found another 1,000 uncounted votes (from Broward County)!"

 

[RockyTop85]

There may be lawsuits by state level-Dem to try and get votes counted after the deadlines if there are still votes coming in/uncounted and postmarked by election day.

"Oh, look, we just found another 1,000 uncounted votes (from Broward County)!"

If democrats could influence Florida officials to “find” fabricated votes, then they would be better served to sneak them in before whatever deadline is set, there. The Supreme Court seems set to follow state interpretation of state law. Florida’s government and judiciary are presently controlled by republicans, IIRC.

 

[37L1]

It was just an example and who knows if they are "fabricated" or legitimate without looking at them?

 

[BowlBrother85]

What's the key take away here? Not an impeachable offense. The Democrats kept changing the charges based upon what they were not finding, not on what they found until they moved forward with weak, BS charges that showed them for what they were, a move to remove a legally elected President by any legal means possible because they don't like him, didn't before he was elected and even more so after.

#resist

That is not true at all. The charges didn't change, and they weren't "BS". Donald Trump tried to leverage Congressionally authorized military aid to an ally, against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for him. Trump's goal wasn't to root out corruption in the Ukraine. Trump's goal was strictly self-serving. Trump was using the power of his office to coerce a personal favor that would have been of no benefit to the country at large... but rather, of benefit to himself. That is called public corruption (please see below), and it can not be allowed to stand as precedent for the acceptable professional conduct of future Presidents of the United States.

Public Corruption: is a breach of the public's trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act.

In this instance, President Donald Trump attempted to use the office of the Presidency, to obtain a campaign favor (the announcement of an investigation into his most likely opponent in the 2020 election) from the President of the Ukraine. President Trump requested this favor in exchange for the military aid which had already been pledged. The official act was the removal of the freeze on the military aid, which Trump himself had placed, just prior to the infamous July 25th phone with President Zelensky. There is nothing "BS" about what happened, and it was proven.

 

[37L1]

That is not true at all. The charges didn't change, and they weren't "BS". Donald Trump tried to leverage Congressionally authorized military aid to an ally, against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for him. Trump's goal wasn't to root out corruption in the Ukraine. Trump's goal was strictly self-serving. Trump was using the power of his office to coerce a personal favor that would have been of no benefit to the country at large... but rather, of benefit to himself. That is called public corruption (please see below), and it can not be allowed to stand as precedent for the acceptable professional conduct of future Presidents of the United States.

Public Corruption: is a breach of the public's trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act.

In this instance, President Donald Trump attempted to use the office of the Presidency, to obtain a campaign favor (the announcement of an investigation into his most likely opponent in the 2020 election) from the President of the Ukraine. President Trump requested this favor in exchange for the military aid which had already been pledged. The official act was the removal of the freeze on the military aid, which Trump himself had placed, just prior to the infamous July 25th phone with President Zelensky. There is nothing "BS" about what happened, and it was proven.

Let's see "Quid pro quo" uh, no that isn't it. Because there wasn't any according the the supposed "victim" and the funds were sent before their due date. But we can argue the strength of the case by the results of the case. So how did it turn out?

"Collusion", uh, no that isn't it.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" yeah, no, maybe. What crime, what misdemeanor? What law? "It's what the House says it is."

"Abuse of power" OK, got ya, that's one finally. Nice try, no cigar.

"Obstruction of Congress" interesting you didn't mention that one., because. . . .not even worth it, is it?

Funny, but I didn't find "public corruption" listed in the charges of impeachment.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Let's see "Quid pro quo" uh, no that isn't it. Because there wasn't any according the the supposed "victim" and the funds were sent before their due date. But we can argue the strength of the case by the results of the case. So how did it turn out?

"Collusion", uh, no that isn't it.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" yeah, no, maybe. What crime, what misdemeanor? What law? "It's what the House says it is."

"Abuse of power" OK, got ya, that's one finally. Nice try, no cigar.

"Obstruction of Congress" interesting you didn't mention that one., because. . . .not even worth it, is it?

Funny, but I didn't find "public corruption" listed in the charges of impeachment.

President Zelensky had to say that while Trump is still in office. His country is at war with Russia, and for obvious reasons, he doesn't want to get involved with American politics. And for about the hundredth time... the funds were NOT sent before the October 1st deadline. That was a White House narrative at the time, but it was a lie - which is often repeated by Trump apologists such as yourself. The crimes were bribery and this was clear cut public corruption, as I have already outlined. I would love to see how a Republican-controlled House would handle a Democratic Party President who did the same thing. This marked an outrageous abuse of power.

 

[37L1]

President Zelensky had to say that while Trump is still in office. His country is at war with Russia, and for obvious reasons, he doesn't want to get involved with American politics. And for about the hundredth time... the funds were NOT sent before the October 1st deadline. That was a White House narrative at the time, but it was a lie - which is often repeated by Trump apologists such as yourself. The crimes were bribery and this clear cut public corruption, as I have already outlined. I would love to see how a Republican-controlled House would handle a Democratic Party President who did the same thing. This marked an outrageous abuse of power.

If the crimes were "bribery" and "public corruption" and they were so "outrageous", why, then, weren't those the charges?

I know you know why. Elements and proof to fit those definitions were not there.

Go back and read Alexander's complete statement particularly his conclusion. Read it out loud if it will help you to understand that the Democrats were unable to bring charges that justified removal from office.

How long are you going to whip that dead horse?

 

[OHvol40]

Really, look up Schiff's secret interviews @Google. There was even an attempt by the Republicans trying to enter it.

Are you still "pretty certain"?

Yep

 

[NorthDallas40]

If the crimes were "bribery" and "public corruption" and they were so "outrageous", why, then, weren't those the charges?

I know you know why. Elements and proof to fit those definitions were not there.

Go back and read Alexander's complete statement particularly his conclusion. Read it out loud if it will help you to understand that the Democrats were unable to bring charges that justified removal from office.

How long are you going to whip that dead horse?

But Alexander said the Democrats proved their point!

 

[RockyTop85]

Really, look up Schiff's secret interviews @Google. There was even an attempt by the Republicans trying to enter it.

Are you still "pretty certain"?

Maybe you should go look that up yourself. He’s correct. Dems and Republicans got equal time to question witnesses. They didn’t use the same amount, IIRC, but they were offered it.

 

[37L1]

Maybe you should go look that up yourself. He’s correct. Dems and Republicans got equal time to question witnesses. They didn’t use the same amount, IIRC, but they were offered it.

I see that now. The b!tch was they were held behind closed doors with selective leaks coming out from them with information withheld from the rest of the House.

They didn't want to hold these "inquiries" in public so that it wouldn't become a "circus." LOL, that's a good one.

Also there was the little game by Pelosi to move it from Nadler's committee to Schiff's so that "certain" Republicans couldn't sit in on "certain" witness testimony.

 

[RockyTop85]

I see that now. The b!tch was they were held behind closed doors with selective leaks coming out from them with information withheld from the rest of the House.

They didn't want to hold these "inquiries" in public so that it wouldn't become a "circus." LOL, that's a good one.

I think there are two legitimate thoughts there:

1. All public congressional hearings are a circus. Supposedly, they act like adults in private.

2. Some of the material was classified so they had more freedom to discuss in private.

The selective leaks thing is a valid criticism, but I think on balance it seems legit, since they went and had public hearings later.

 

[37L1]

I think there are two legitimate thoughts there:

1. All public congressional hearings are a circus. Supposedly, they act like adults in private.

2. Some of the material was classified so they had more freedom to discuss in private.

The selective leaks thing is a valid criticism, but I think on balance it seems legit, since they went and had public hearings later.

Of course you do. I have no problem with that except the acting like adults in private. There are certain members of Congress who just generate distrust, pick your party, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything except #2 in private. There is, for certain, playing for the cameras, no doubt. Just look at some of the Senators who voted no on Barrett's confirmation. I'm looking at you Mazie.

 

[ajvol01]

That is not true at all. The charges didn't change, and they weren't "BS". Donald Trump tried to leverage Congressionally authorized military aid to an ally, against their president's willingness to perform a campaign favor for him. Trump's goal wasn't to root out corruption in the Ukraine. Trump's goal was strictly self-serving. Trump was using the power of his office to coerce a personal favor that would have been of no benefit to the country at large... but rather, of benefit to himself. That is called public corruption (please see below), and it can not be allowed to stand as precedent for the acceptable professional conduct of future Presidents of the United States.

Public Corruption: is a breach of the public's trust by government officials who use their public office to obtain personal gain. It is a violation of federal law for any federal, state, or local government official to ask for or receive anything of value in exchange for, or because of, any official act.

In this instance, President Donald Trump attempted to use the office of the Presidency, to obtain a campaign favor (the announcement of an investigation into his most likely opponent in the 2020 election) from the President of the Ukraine. President Trump requested this favor in exchange for the military aid which had already been pledged. The official act was the removal of the freeze on the military aid, which Trump himself had placed, just prior to the infamous July 25th phone with President Zelensky. There is nothing "BS" about what happened, and it was proven.

Damn you’re gullible

 

[ajvol01]

President Zelensky had to say that while Trump is still in office. His country is at war with Russia, and for obvious reasons, he doesn't want to get involved with American politics. And for about the hundredth time... the funds were NOT sent before the October 1st deadline. That was a White House narrative at the time, but it was a lie - which is often repeated by Trump apologists such as yourself. The crimes were bribery and this was clear cut public corruption, as I have already outlined. I would love to see how a Republican-controlled House would handle a Democratic Party President who did the same thing. This marked an outrageous abuse of power.

Make it up as you go, huh? You might have a future with the DNC