Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

#677
#677
0nelilreb said:
So everyone that testified during the impeachment , is now a whistleblower or protected under that umbrella?
Click to expand...

It depends on their employment status, but congressional testimony is consistent with 5 USC 2302’s definition of “disclosure” which looks pretty broad.

I have no idea whether Vindman or Sondland qualifies based on their employment status. It refers to certain terms of art used to define certain classes of federal employees.

There may be other considerations, like the fact that they were ordered not to attend, but I don’t care enough to look into it.
 
Last edited:
#678
#678
BowlBrother85 said:
It doesn't matter how many times you say this part in bold. My counter argument doesn't have to change:

That is not what Sen. Lamar Alexander said in his statement... nor is what Sen. Susan Collins said on Fox News last week, or what Sen. Marco Rubio has publicly said. It is not what Sen. Mitt Romney said before his vote to convict. The opinions of those people matter. Yours does not. Trump was guilty as charged under Article I : Abuse of Power. He did exactly what Democrats in the House accused him of doing. Senate Republicans (except for Romney) just don't think he should be punished for it. This wasn't a hoax or a sham. Trump was guilty.
Click to expand...


It's interesting how you pick and choose parts of a statement to make your claim while completely ignoring what others would consider the crux of the argument. Alexander also included this:

Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.
Click to expand...

You choose to play up the part of the statement that says the house made its case. While totally neglecting the important words "Even if the House charges were true". Why would Alexander have added that passage if he considered that the house had made a valid case rather than simply putting before the nation something that was verifiable but completely meaningless? The whole house of cards was an exercise in futility ... sound and fury signifying nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, 37L1, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#679
#679
Weezer said:
Point 3, the Dems really need to stop with this idea of it being someone's "turn". Personally, I think that hurt them in 2016 with it being Hillary's "turn".

The problem with Bloomberg is he didn't jump in at the beginning. If he were to somehow get the Dem nom now, it absolutely looks like he bought his way in. I think that would disillusion a lot of people.

JMO, but the Dems need to put work in finding an actual viable candidate for 2024. I think by focusing on an impeachment that was always doomed to fail, they hurt themselves by not finding such a candidate for 2020. And who knows, the economy may have prevented anyone from beating Trump, but the Dema have done themselves no favors with the strategy they chose.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not been a Dem voter for a long time, but they blew 2020 by chasing Trump instead of putting in the work to beat him and solidify the party. The only two people they have that I would say I could like are Klobuchar and Gabbard. One was rightfully impatient with the machine and decided to run outside the welcome wagon and is now more or less black balled, and the other is not "her time". But, may very well end up a VP pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#680
#680
37L1 said:
Every time you post a partial quote from Lamar Alexander, you need to include the most important part of his quote, which you convienently always leave out. It's his conclusion, you know, the point of the whole statement.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.


“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.


“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”


Does anyone wonder why you left this part out? Give it up BB. You're sounding the same as you did when the results came in from the Mueller Report. Where are the House Articles of Impeachment from that one?
Click to expand...

Ah, somebody else that reads all. I didn't realize you had pointed that out when I said essentially the same thing later.
 
#682
#682
C-south said:
Is he out of the military? I’d say he’ll probably retires as a Lt Colonel though.
Click to expand...

Whether Vindman gets a star or oak leaf to put on one of his previously awarded commendation or meritorious service awards after this tour is also questionable. Poor boy. He's not likely to get a second purple heart for a self inflicted wound either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and C-south
#683
#683
AM64 said:
Ah, somebody else that reads all. I didn't realize you had pointed that out when I said essentially the same thing later.
Click to expand...
It's the third time, at least, that this has been pointed out to BawlBrother and yet he still persists as if he believes that, if it is repeated often enough, people will believe that is all Alexander had to say thereby perverting the message that was actually delivered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and AM64
#684
#684
lawgator1 said:
Bill Clinton apologized.

Trump screamed and bragged and in a stream of consciousness ramble lied 50 more times, to add to his total.
Click to expand...

Clinton was guilty of taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it ... not much you can do except apologize. Trump was found not guilty ... why apologize for not doing something someone accused you of doing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, FLVOL69 and volfanjustin
#685
#685
RockyTop85 said:
It depends on their employment status, but congressional testimony is consistent with 5 USC 2302’s definition of “disclosure” which looks pretty broad.

I have no idea whether Vindman or Sondland qualifies based on their employment status. It refers to certain terms of art used to define certain classes of federal employees.

There may be other considerations, like the fact that they were ordered not to attend, but I don’t care enough to look into it.
Click to expand...
Maybe they can find a decent lawyer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#686
#686
AM64 said:
Clinton was guilty of taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it ... not much you can do except apologize. Trump was found not guilty ... why apologize for not doing something someone accused you of doing?
Click to expand...
He did it. Who are you trying to convince?
 
#688
#688
37L1 said:
Maybe they can find a decent lawyer?
Click to expand...
Vindman already has one. I’m sure Sondland has several.

No idea what the remedies are for a violation of whistleblower protections. Obviously there won’t be any repercussions for Trump. If it’s just damages, neither has much reason to sue.

Either way, SoL will extend beyond Inauguration Day 2021 so might as well hold off and see if you get an administration that will actually comply with discovery.
 
#689
#689
Weezer said:
Losing an election to Trump, Russian collusion, a failed impeachment for completely political reasons , screwing up their own primary in Iowa, attacking people over a hat....I'm sorry, but the Dems currently have him beat. The best I can give you is he's running second, but I'm not entirely sure that's true.

Honestly, if I were you, or luther, or Mick, or EL, or any other poster that sides with the Dems, I'd be concerned about the state of my chosen party. Your leaders are failing you, and none of your candidates for the 2020 Presidential election stand out as strong. Your party is in disarray, and they continue to display behavior that they attribute to Trump. And no one with common sense buys luther's idea that it's okay to sink to a level of behavior you condemn because Trump. It still displays a hypocritical behavior that people clearly see.

I've gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter what party controls the WH, because Congress is more likely to stymy them than not. But if you want a Dem President, you need to hope your party comes to its senses at some point. I'm not sure how you guys don't see they're off the rails at this point. I'm guessing you just choose not to see. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting there's a problem, and the Dems have yet to do that. You need to stop believing the hype machine and take a closer look at reality.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think that BB's party is suffering from more than poor judgement and errors in political philosophy ... liberalism in a capitalist country. It's beginning to appear they are mentally unstable ... significantly unbalanced and probably legally incompetent to manage their own affairs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, W.TN.Orange Blood and volfanjustin
#690
#690
RockyTop85 said:
Vindman already has one. I’m sure Sondland has several.

No idea what the remedies are for a violation of whistleblower protections. Obviously there won’t be any repercussions for Trump. If it’s just damages, neither has much reason to sue.

Either way, SoL will extend beyond Inauguration Day 2021 so might as well hold off and see if you get an administration that will actually comply with discovery.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Vindman have more than one? Volkov and Pressman?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#691
#691
Mick said:
He did it. Who are you trying to convince?
Click to expand...

I thought you were of the "deep thinking party"? Sure Trump asked Ukraine to investigate. What your guys failed to prove was that he did it to harm a "political rival" ... like sleepy ole Joe is a threat to anybody other than himself. As far as things are going Joe isn't even a rival for his fellow democrats and certainly not going to be Trump's rival.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and vols40
#692
#692
RockyTop85 said:
Vindman already has one. I’m sure Sondland has several.

No idea what the remedies are for a violation of whistleblower protections. Obviously there won’t be any repercussions for Trump. If it’s just damages, neither has much reason to sue.

Either way, SoL will extend beyond Inauguration Day 2021 so might as well hold off and see if you get an administration that will actually comply with discovery.
Click to expand...

Remember impeachment is a political rather than a judicial process.
 
#693
#693
AM64 said:
I'm beginning to think that BB's party is suffering from more than poor judgement and errors in political philosophy ... liberalism in a capitalist country. It's beginning to appear they are mentally unstable ... significantly unbalanced and probably legally incompetent to manage their own affairs.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this statement. Right on, bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin and AM64
#694
#694
AM64 said:
I thought you were of the "deep thinking party"? Sure Trump asked Ukraine to investigate. What your guys failed to prove was that he did it to harm a "political rival" ... like sleepy ole Joe is a threat to anybody other than himself. As far as things are going Joe isn't even a rival for his fellow democrats and certainly not going to be Trump's rival.
Click to expand...

Who are you trying to convince "no harm, no foul" applies?
 
#697
#697
GVF said:
Agreed. Not been a Dem voter for a long time, but they blew 2020 by chasing Trump instead of putting in the work to beat him and solidify the party. The only two people they have that I would say I could like are Klobuchar and Gabbard. One was rightfully impatient with the machine and decided to run outside the welcome wagon and is now more or less black balled, and the other is not "her time". But, may very well end up a VP pick.
Click to expand...


Bloomberg-Kobuchar could work.

But the signs would have to be pretty big, or the print tiny.
 
#698
#698
AM64 said:
Whether Vindman gets a star or oak leaf to put on one of his previously awarded commendation or meritorious service awards after this tour is also questionable. Poor boy. He's not likely to get a second purple heart for a self inflicted wound either.
Click to expand...
I don't know, those shaving cuts can bleed a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and FLVOL69
#700
#700
AM64 said:
Well, I had hope, but I guess you are still resistant to reason.
Click to expand...
You have to try to convince yourself with your flawed reasoning is exactly what I was thinking. You want more proof that Trump was seeking help from Ukraine to investigate Biden?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top