The Impeachment Thread

[Septic]

Old people and social media are never a good mix.

Humanity and social media are never a good mix.

 

[Orange_Crush]

[Edit: WHat the heck is up with quoting right now? Is mine the only one going crazy?

The IG seems to believe they were credible, must have been an Obama appointee.

Which IG? I'm seriously asking because I know the answer.

The ICIG. You told us what IG stands for in that. Now, what does IC stand for?

I'll give you "six ways" that that's important.

 

[Septic]

Did Q predict this?

 

[AM64]

Oh, and:

(3) Trump has the democrats and their supportive media screaming from the mountaintops how horrible it is to get in bed with foreign countries in support of US election swaying. He has them screaming how horrible abuse of power and corruption is for personal gain. He has them calling for blood and telling the American public how anyone who does something like that is unfit for office and to hold any power.

(4) He has the Democrats calling for an investigation into Ukrainian corruption, where Biden's son was on an energy board, making roughly $600,000/yr with no skills to speak of. Where the Obama administration admittedly used power and tax dollars as threats to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. The prosecutor that was investigating the corporation that was paying Biden's son roughly $600,000/yr.

lol

I'm not saying that any of that is proof that bad mojo was going down, nor that Trump is innocent. But you ask for scenarios that Trump is innocent and doesn't release the full transcript?

OK.

The other thing nobody's said much about is that Hunter was on the Burisma board for five years (2014 - 2019) ... that's not innocent flirtation with maybe this isn't a good idea.

 

[RockyTop85]

It looks like they are very much trying to set the procedure to their favor ... of the "give him a fair trial and hang him " type. Secondly I can't imagine any way for a defendant to have a fair trial without facing his accuser.

This is a he said/she said type thing when you get right down to it ... interpretation of words, and whether in someone's opinions the words were recorded accurately. I'll guarantee you that several people in this thread have come out of a meeting and found they didn't conclude the same thing that someone else in the meeting did. We all observe events differently, and we often believe we saw something differently than another observer.

Even if this were a criminal case (it’s not) Americans have never had a right to confront a witness during an ongoing investigation. In fact, it’s frequently illegal to do so. There is no right to confront witnesses before a grand jury, to which the house is equivalent, here.

The right of confrontation attached after the indictment is returned or at trial.

The average American has no right to hide behind frivolous assertions of privilege. Which Trump has done.

The average American has no right to ignore legal process. Which Trump has done.

The average American doesn’t have a right to a jury that announces they won’t convict you before there is even an indictment. Which Trump has.

Furthermore, many of the rights you do have, such as the right to make bail, can be suspended if you aren’t able to exercise them responsibly. Which Trump has shown time and time again, he cannot do. If any of my clients threatened witnesses, obstructed justice, or ignored legal process the way Trump has done, they would have their bail revoked. They would go to jail where they would sit until the case was disposed of.

So puhleaze, spare me the “he is being treated unfairly.” It’s not a credible argument. He’s got advantages by virtue of being rich and by virtue of his elected office that nobody on this board could possibly hope to have if they were under a criminal investigation (which he’s not).

This investigation will not result in his execution. He’s not headed for incarceration. It will not result in forfeiture of his property. At most, it would result in the loss of the privilege of serving as president of the United States. And it won’t even result in that. Just ask the jury.

 

[evillawyer]

Yo, GOP senators and representatives. This is called being thrown under the bus. He will do it to all of you. Just flip all at once and you'll be inoculated from him because he'll have no power. He has power only because you guys believe he has power.

 

[Septic]

Yo, GOP senators and representatives. This is called being thrown under the bus. He will do it to all of you. Just flip all at once and you'll be inoculated from him because he'll have no power. He has power only because you guys believe he has power.

GOP congressman 'heartbroken' over President's Syria moves and says he no longer supports Trump

I underestimated the character of "the GOP", looks like at least one is looking to do the right thing. This is why we shouldn't paint with broad brushes...

 

[0nelilreb]

Humanity and social media are never a good mix.

Damn it

 

[Septic]

Damn it

Shhh....

It gets easier, just let it happen.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Because he only cares about winning, if he could shut them down he would. Public sentiment is not trending in his favor.

Are you deflecting from the question you asked and the I answered--the scenario where Trump is innocent and still doesn't release the full call?

I don't think anyone in here really knows what public sentiment is doing. The MSM media have proven to be shills that lie for the liberal party. There have been too many times they've broken stories that promised to sink Trump, then turned out to be misrepresentations and fabrications.

I think the people aren't as stupid as you expect they are. I think they've wised up. And I suspect the media is posting doctored polls, trying to manipulate and create public opinion as opposed to report it. I think they hope that, if they put out enough polls that indicate people have turned on Trump, people will unthinkingly turn on Trump, going along with the supposed wisdom of the supposed masses.

But again, I don't know that the MSM has enough credibility left to pull that off, if that's what is happening.

 

[VolnJC]

Nothing here to see..just 2 high ranking members of the DNC talking about getting info on Trump from a foreign country..maybe you heard of it. Ukraine

 

[Septic]

Are you deflecting from the question you asked and the I answered--the scenario where Trump is innocent and still doesn't release the full call?

I don't think anyone in here really knows what public sentiment is doing. The MSM media have proven to be shills that lie for the liberal party. There have been too many times they've broken stories that promised to sink Trump, then turned out to be misrepresentations and fabrications.

I think the people aren't as stupid as you expect they are. I think they've wised up. And I suspect the media is posting doctored polls, trying to manipulate and create public opinion as opposed to report it. I think they hope that, if they put out enough polls that indicate people have turned on Trump, people will unthinkingly turn on Trump, going along with the supposed wisdom of the supposed masses.

But again, I don't know that the MSM has enough credibility left to pull that off, if that's what is happening.

I reject your answers as implausible. Trump acts on emotion, not measured or rational thought. If he could 'win' immediately in grand, showboating fashion - he would.

He doesn't play 4-D chess as you once proclaimed, I doubt he has the intellectual capacity to play checkers.

 

[hUTch2002]

The arrests of two Giuliani associates for campaign finance violations today more than slightly undermines your argument. Giuliani has previously said that both of the men arrested, worked with him as part of his dealings in Ukraine that involved efforts to encourage the nation to investigate the Bidens. One of the men, Lev Parnas, told the Miami Herald last week that he had passed information on the Bidens to Giuliani. The two men were trying to flee the country at the time of their arrest.

Even if you are correct about today, and arrests don’t mean guilt, did you know that when you posted? Nope.

 

[AM64]

Even if this were a criminal case (it’s not) Americans have never had a right to confront a witness during an ongoing investigation. In fact, it’s frequently illegal to do so. There is no right to confront witnesses before a grand jury, to which the house is equivalent, here.

The right of confrontation attached after the indictment is returned or at trial.

The average American has no right to hide behind frivolous assertions of privilege. Which Trump has done.

The average American has no right to ignore legal process. Which Trump has done.

The average American doesn’t have a right to a jury that announces they won’t convict you before there is even an indictment. Which Trump has.

Furthermore, many of the rights you do have, such as the right to make bail, can be suspended if you aren’t able to exercise them responsibly. Which Trump has shown time and time again, he cannot do. If any of my clients threatened witnesses, obstructed justice, or ignored legal process the way Trump has done, they would have their bail revoked. They would go to jail where they would sit until the case was disposed of.

So puhleaze, spare me the “he is being treated unfairly.” It’s not a credible argument. He’s got advantages by virtue of being rich and by virtue of his elected office that nobody on this board could possibly hope to have if they were under a criminal investigation (which he’s not).

This investigation will not result in his execution. He’s not headed for incarceration. It will not result in forfeiture of his property. At most, it would result in the loss of the privilege of serving as president of the United States. And it won’t even result in that. Just ask the jury.

I'm not going to attempt to argue law or impeachment proceedings with you. My statement was "Secondly I can't imagine any way for a defendant to have a fair trial without facing his accuser." I thought "meet accuser" and "fair trial" implied that during the process of impeachment the accused should be afforded the right to meet and argue against his accuser's claims. From all appearances dims had every intention of keeping the whistleblowers anonymous so that relevance could never be questioned.

It is kinda important. Was this someone who actually heard all and understood what went on, or are we talking a janitor who went through the trash can? There are all kinds of questions like was the whistleblower or multiples actually in the room ... if so, where, why, and how close to the conversation. Was he/she/them on the line listening? Legitimately or clandestinely? We won't even mention one of your profession's fun terms ... "standing".

 

[Orange_Crush]

I reject your answers as implausible. Trump acts on emotion, not measured or rational thought. If he could 'win' immediately in grand, showboating fashion - he would.

He doesn't play 4-D chess as you once proclaimed, I doubt he has the intellectual capacity to play checkers.

OK.

Scenario given, and you're back to dancing around the fact that you basically have nothing but bad feelz and "Orange man bad" in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing.

Carry on.

 

[hUTch2002]

House Democrats not likely to fight subpoenas...so there it is...the end of it. They will vote to impeach in what they have and the Senate will call Volker and a couple of witnesses....vote to acquit and call it a day....then we can get back to normal and making fun of the Dems terrible 2020 field
View attachment 230437

This can’t be true. BB just said this is a dreadful week for Trump and Monty and Stew and have been promising impeachment, not to mention LG and EL. No way this is accurate.

 

[RockyTop85]

I'm not going to attempt to argue law or impeachment proceedings with you. My statement was "Secondly I can't imagine any way for a defendant to have a fair trial without facing his accuser." I thought "meet accuser" and "fair trial" implied that during the process of impeachment the accused should be afforded the right to meet and argue against his accuser's claims. From all appearances dims had every intention of keeping the whistleblowers anonymous so that relevance could never be questioned.

It is kinda important. Was this someone who actually heard all and understood what went on, or are we talking a janitor who went through the trash can? There are all kinds of questions like was the whistleblower or multiples actually in the room ... if so, where, why, and how close to the conversation. Was he/she/them on the line listening? Legitimately or clandestinely? We won't even mention one of your profession's fun terms ... "standing".

The impeachment is equivalent to an indictment.

 

[lawgator1]

Yo, GOP senators and representatives. This is called being thrown under the bus. He will do it to all of you. Just flip all at once and you'll be inoculated from him because he'll have no power. He has power only because you guys believe he has power.

They were clients of Rudy and you'll have to ask him.

 

[AM64]

The impeachment is equivalent to an indictment.

OK. I was sloppy in my language, but rarely do people talk about the "impeachment trial" they just assume that the impeachment process includes that. We always talk about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton ... not about the separate phases of the process.

BTW, I always thought that "impeaching" a witness meant tossing the witness ... not just accusing him. If so, would that mean the legal profession is a little guilty of imprecision, too?

 

[hog88]

I seemed to remember reading somewhere that these calls are not recorded. FWIW.

Such records are typically a rough transcript as a president's phone calls with world leaders are not recorded, according to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. The formal draft instead relies on National Security Council (NSC) staff who are listening in and taking notes.

Trump's Ukraine call: How are records kept for the president's conversations with world leaders?

I pointed this out several days ago, the mouthbreathers chose to ignore facts.

 

[hog88]

I don't believe for a second that every phone call in and out of that place isn't recorded.

Believe it.

 

[happy-go_vol]

I reject your answers as implausible. Trump acts on emotion, not measured or rational thought. If he could 'win' immediately in grand, showboating fashion - he would.

He doesn't play 4-D chess as you once proclaimed, I doubt he has the intellectual capacity to play checkers.

Lol. Poor clueless kid

 

[BowlBrother85]

Even if this were a criminal case (it’s not) Americans have never had a right to confront a witness during an ongoing investigation. In fact, it’s frequently illegal to do so. There is no right to confront witnesses before a grand jury, to which the house is equivalent, here.

The right of confrontation attached after the indictment is returned or at trial.

The average American has no right to hide behind frivolous assertions of privilege. Which Trump has done.

The average American has no right to ignore legal process. Which Trump has done.

The average American doesn’t have a right to a jury that announces they won’t convict you before there is even an indictment. Which Trump has.

Furthermore, many of the rights you do have, such as the right to make bail, can be suspended if you aren’t able to exercise them responsibly. Which Trump has shown time and time again, he cannot do. If any of my clients threatened witnesses, obstructed justice, or ignored legal process the way Trump has done, they would have their bail revoked. They would go to jail where they would sit until the case was disposed of.

So puhleaze, spare me the “he is being treated unfairly.” It’s not a credible argument. He’s got advantages by virtue of being rich and by virtue of his elected office that nobody on this board could possibly hope to have if they were under a criminal investigation (which he’s not).

This investigation will not result in his execution. He’s not headed for incarceration. It will not result in forfeiture of his property. At most, it would result in the loss of the privilege of serving as president of the United States. And it won’t even result in that. Just ask the jury.

This was a great post. All of it. The part I placed in bold needs to be emphasized. In his tweets, Trump keeps saying that every American has the right to face his accuser. This is a reference to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. This right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings.

In his impulsive tweets, Trump continues to display ignorance and outright stupidity with his fundamental failure to comprehend the Constitution. That is inexcusable coming from a sitting president.

 

[Mick]

Got any lottery picks?

@NorthDallas40 didn't know there are actual books behind the clef notes.

 

[NorthDallas40]

@NorthDallas40 didn't know there are actual books behind the clef notes.

*cliff unless you and @RockyTop85 intend to make sweet music together? Not judging...

Still waiting for actual proof that the WH released transcript isn’t the official written record memorializing the call...

And I know I’m going to be waiting an eternity. Do back to your fapping, innuendo, and hyperbole!