The Impeachment Thread

#40,404
#40,404

EPlO1H3X0AE-j-E
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, W.TN.Orange Blood and VolnJC
#40,407
#40,407
Weezer said:
Election wasn't rigged. Trump didn't get his investigation, did he? And like I said, unethical, but not to the levels of removal from office. Steele Dossier was unethical as well, but the left funded it and pranced it about. Both sides are guilty of unethical behavior. It's just sad that people like Mick can't admit to it. All because Trump hate. Hate is not a valid reason for impeachment.

The funny thing is, the left, and they won't admit it, is trying to not only undo the last election, but rig the next election in their favor by impeaching Trump for invalid reasons. At the very least, they should have found something worthy, but I'm guessing they couldn't so they ran with this weak ass accusation.
Click to expand...

Under more normal conditions, "unethical" might apply. Considering everything that has been done to oust Trump dating back to before he even took office, he is more than justified in protecting himself. It might be wrong to shoot somebody; however, if that somebody is armed and willing to shoot you first, I'll go with "justified" and "self defense" all day long. This is Josey Wales time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Sea Ray and Orangeburst
#40,408
#40,408
volfanhill said:
And Lamar is spot on. Trump did it. It’s just doesn’t rise to impeachment.
Click to expand...
As long as Republicans will admit that what Donald Trump did was inappropriate (as Sen. Lamar Alexander just did), I don't have a problem with ending this now, even without witnesses and new evidence. What I have been looking for from the start was some acknowledgement from the Republican side that what Trump did was wrong. This is only one Republican senator, but it is at least something.

From Senator Lamar Alexander's statement, these are the two tweets that stand out and are hard to take issue with:

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation."

And...

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense..."

It's very clear what Sen. Alexander is saying. The allegations themselves were not a hoax or some phony charge. They were the result of wrongdoing on the part of President Donald Trump, but they did not justify Trump's impeachment or his removal from office. I can live with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#40,409
#40,409
tennvols77 said:
House didn't do it's job, or seem to know how to actually do it's job. Or, didn't care enough to follow protocol, and even passed it's own new rule for the 116th Congress to subjugate it...........

House of Rep's subpoenas were invalid, legally. (Philbin and lack of authorization for House subpeoans)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conte...l-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf

On the charge that the President lacked “lawful cause or excuse” to resist House Democrats’ subpoenas........

They (House of Representatives) never authorized an impeachment inquiry to obtain subpoenas, they cannot issue subpoenas unless they have enabling authorization from the House........after Trump counsel said not getting anything, they realized when Kuppperman filed his action they screwed up, so, they now authorized impeachment inquiry, and then, never retro actively said they were valid, and never issued them as new ones either.

Supposedly this is basic Supreme Court law/ruling that says a House committee cannot just start go issuing subpoenas unless they have enabling authorization from the House........

So, what is a counter response in terms of the "law".

Trump’s Defense Against Subpoenas Makes No Legal Sense

Reading the article, it seems this entire argument counter to Philbin is forgetting the one simple bueracratic-on the book way to do things to continue on with this supposed granted power was to follow the SOP, and they didn't. Similar to getting off on a technicality for some crime, police or attorney's screwed up, and thus, it's invalid.

Mr. Philbin argues that the Constitution literally means impeachment belongs to the whole House while House Democrats have argued that the rules they passed for the 116th Congress rendered such a separate vote unnecessary.

So, they can pass this and invalidate Supreme Court rulings....for sole purpose of...........

You attorneys on here like to expound? Seemingly, the simple procedure is what is important, and regardless of what validation the Dem's in the House feel they have, or might have, or do have, they didn't follow the simple operating procedure, which, like it or not, means the case and foundation for the case are null and void as something as simple as following protocol derails it's legitimacy regardless of any current 116th Congress rule to invalidate it......?

Genuinely interested in discussion/responses so please try and keep it to topic of this concept above. All respondents back and forth try and be nice and civil and no name calling.......
Click to expand...

Since the branches of government are separate and equal and if congress is free to force the administration to turn over information, then the administration should hold precisely the same privilege. If it came down to that argument, how ready does anyone suppose the house is to give up the whistle blower and all the "information" they claim to hold? Donald needs to seriously step up his game of chicken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and tennvols77
#40,414
#40,414
BowlBrother85 said:
As long as Republicans will admit that what Donald Trump did was inappropriate (as Sen. Lamar Alexander just did), I don't have a problem with ending this now, even without witnesses and new evidence. What I have been looking for from the start was some acknowledgement from the Republican side that what Trump did was wrong. This is only one Republican senator, but it is at least something.

From Senator Lamar Alexander's statement, these are the two tweets that stand out and are hard to take issue with:

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation."

And...

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense..."

It's very clear what Sen. Alexander is saying. The allegations themselves were not a hoax or some phony charge. They were the result of wrongdoing on the part of President Donald Trump, but they did not justify Trump's impeachment or his removal from office. I can live with that.
Click to expand...
I have been saying that all along. But it’s never come close to a legitimate reason to remove trump from office. Pelosi knows that as do reasonable Dems. They over shot their hand. That’s on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64 and 0nelilreb
#40,417
#40,417
BREAKING: 'Profiles in Corruption' reveals how Elizabeth Warren largely amassed her multimillion-dollar fortune by assisting corporations in navigating the bankruptcy laws she helped pen.
It just keeps getting better and better. More corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64 and StarRaider
#40,419
#40,419
volfanhill said:
I have been saying that all along. But it’s never come close to a legitimate reason to remove trump from office. Pelosi knows that as do reasonable Dems. They over shot their hand. That’s on them.
Click to expand...
Maybe they did, but Senator Alexander's statement is something very new to this whole messy process. He is the first Republican in Congress to publicly acknowledge that Donald Trump did something wrong. It is the first defense which isn't the defense that Trump wants - the "perfect call" defense.
 
#40,422
#40,422
Mick said:
All the time. The 44 Presidents before this one didn't ask Russia or Ukraine for illegal Election help. And all of Trump's actions prove he knew it was illegal.
Click to expand...

How would you interpret "after my election I have more flexibility"? And why would the Russian president state he'd transmit that to Putin, if he didn't understand what Obama was saying? Sorry, you have no clue what 44 other presidents have requested or agreed to with regards to elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top