Impeachment Witnesses

Apparently they afford you the luxury to post freely on a hooker board all day. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

by putting in 35 years of employment with the state of Texas and retired long before The Idiot came along.

Ha! I love your wit! I always have.

Apparently they afford you the luxury to post freely on a hooker board all day. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Don't be so sensitive Stiki. This is a hobby and not work.

by putting in 35 years of employment with the state of Texas and retired long before The Idiot came along. Originally Posted by stikiwikit

Read the transcript. The rest is just hearsay. And not good hearsay at that.

Wow, what a stunning counterargument. Despite all of the overwhelming evidence that the Republican party under Trump has gotten more corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, you have shown us the error of our ways by pointing out the obvious fact that there exist people who post on hooker boards.

Guess we all better hang up our gloves. Well-reasoned arguments like ours are no match for your astute observations.

I suppose next you'll be telling us that it was okay to impeach Clinton over a blow-job but not okay to impeach Trump for seeking foreign influence to rig his re-election because Monica Lewinski had weight issues. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Read the transcript. The rest is just hearsay. And not good hearsay at that. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

If it's just hearsay, then why did Trump block the witnesses from testifying under oath, like Mick Mulvaney, who said publicly that it was quid pro quo, and John Bolton, who famously called it a drug deal and would have testified that Trump told him personally that it was a quid pro quo?

And why is Trump suppressing documents like the two dozen emails that the Center for Public Integrity has identified?

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...t-filing-about

I know, "executive privilege", which is code for "damage control." If it's just hearsay, then the documents would clear him. Since he's not releasing them, they are clearly incriminating. There's no other reasonable explanation.

As far as the transcript, Alexander Vindman, who directs European affairs for the National Security Council, testified that the rough transcript released by the White House was incomplete and omitted several crucial words and phrases.

I'd love to read an actual transcript, if it exists. I doubt we'll ever see it, though, because of, you know "executive privilege". But the phone call was only a part of a month's long conspiracy involving Giuliani and other shady back-channel characters to deprive the American people of a free and fair election in 2020.

I'd wager that's a little more important to most people than a blow job in the Oval Office.

Read the transcript. The rest is just hearsay. And not good hearsay at that. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Obviously there was more than one call. The transcript was from an April 21st call between Trump and Zelensky. The phone call in question was made on July 25th. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"President Donald Trump released a rough transcript Friday of his first conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and was quickly confronted with questions about why it departed from an initial description of that April conversation.

Absent from the call was any discussion of corruption in Ukraine, which Trump and his allies have said was at the heart of the president's requests for investigations. A brief summary of the same call released by the White House in April claimed Trump "expressed his commitment" to strengthen democracy and "root out corruption."

The largely congratulatory phone call was placed months before a second, ill-fated conversation between the two leaders in July that became the focus of the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. Trump described Zelensky's election as "fantastic" and "incredible" in the April call and drew comparisons to his own success in 2016."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ky/2567105001/

Oh well. I believe in innocence before proven guilty.
And again - Trump doesn't have to prove he is innocent. Ask any lawyer.

Ok - Iowa - any predictions? That's wild out there. I think it will be Bernie or Biden. But Bernie may get screwed again if Warren's votes go to Biden. It's a tossup.

Oh well. I believe in innocence before proven guilty.
And again - Trump doesn't have to prove he is innocent. Ask any lawyer.

Ok - Iowa - any predictions? That's wild out there. I think it will be Bernie or Biden. But Bernie may get screwed again if Warren's votes go to Biden. It's a tossup. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Bullshit. He's hiding behind executive privilege and obstructing justice by ignoring congressional subpoenas. No other President has ever demonstrated so little respect for congressional oversight, and Republican senators are complicit in enabling his corruption by blocking witnesses from testifying. That will not escape notice in November.

Time to drain the swamp for real. Ask any lawyer in the House Judiciary Committee.

By the way, this thread is called "Impeachment Witnesses", not "Who Do You Like For Iowa?" Way to deflect attention from the shenanigans of your favorite crime boss.

Both sides have agendas and twist everything to their favor. The democrats should not have made decision to file with Senate until they had everything they needed. Originally Posted by Mr.looking4it

While I sympathize with your desire to find some middle ground, the House Dem's decided that it was too important to wait for the courts to rule on Trump's claim of executive immunity.

No other president in history has made such a broad claim of immunity in providing evidence required by congressional subpoena, and it would have taken months to go through the judicial system. They felt like there was a crime in progress, and that's why they didn't wait to go forward with the impeachment articles.

Republicans should have made deal for censoring president instead of impeachment, since agreement probably could have been made the phone call was not perfect.

There is a proposal for censure in the Senate, but it's not likely to go anywhere. Republicans are too timid to censure Trump because of his broad popular support among his base. Nobody wants to lose their job, and while they may privately disagree with Trump's actions, they feel that they want to be around and have influence after all of this conflict fades away.

Democrats also screwed up by starting this off saying they had open and shut case with the testimonies they had.

House impeachment is akin to a grand jury, where enough evidence is presented to establish probable cause to prosecute. Prosecution after a grand jury doesn't require an open and shut case, and the burden of proof does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

It appears to me, and apparently to a majority of the House of Representatives that we elected, that the burden of proof was sufficient to impeach. You may disagree with that, but I think that our representatives are very aware of the requirements of such an action. And if we disagree with that choice, we have the option to vote them out when they come up for re-election.

Republicans are using senate rules the same way Democrats used their rules in House.

Yes, they followed their own rules explicitly. However, in the last impeachment trial, they didn't block witnesses from testifying. I think that's the main reason some people are upset, because it seems like a sham trial.

Its all political and costing millions of dollars and most are tired of it all.

Yes, it's all political. The U.S. Constitution is all political, and it is the basis of our entire legal system. This impeachment maybe cost a lot of money, but it's a tiny amount looking at the big picture.

And yes, everyone is tired of it, but I respect the beliefs of those who felt it was necessary. I don't think they did it for political payback. I think they did it because they were concerned for our democracy and protecting our Constitution.

There is corruption on many different levels in either influence or dollars on both sides and they talk about corruption in Ukraine. I don't care much for Trumps' statements at times but his policies for economy is working, and all i am hearing on the other side is tax, tax , tax. If they could ever get along and work together it would be great. Trump was Democrat at one time and still has views that Republicans don't like, but could create some room to negotiate. I consider myself and Independent and try to be impartial.
I would agree on censoring him, but not impeachment

The impeachment is not about tax tax tax. Republicans do that to, they just distribute the money for different priorities. Yes, some Democrats are corrupt, and some Republicans are too. We should be united in fighting corruption wherever it exists, even if it's people we identify with. Otherwise we enable corruption to continue.

Government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. That's what I believe anyway.

Thanks for posting. You have a lot of good arguments, and while I may disagree with some of them, it's good to talk things out. Hope to see you back!

WTF are you talking about - provide proof of everything you just accused Trump of doing. Go ahead - You don't have shit dude. Trump will be re elected so start crying now.

Bullshit. He's hiding behind executive privilege and obstructing justice by ignoring congressional subpoenas. No other President has ever demonstrated so little respect for congressional oversight, and Republican senators are complicit in enabling his corruption by blocking witnesses from testifying. That will not escape notice in November.

Time to drain the swamp for real. Ask any lawyer in the House Judiciary Committee.

By the way, this thread is called "Impeachment Witnesses", not "Who Do You Like For Iowa?" Way to deflect attention from the shenanigans of your favorite crime boss. Originally Posted by Dev Null

WTF are you talking about - provide proof of everything you just accused Trump of doing. Go ahead - You don't have shit dude. Trump will be re elected so start crying now. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Don't be such a snowflake.

So you're saying he didn't obstruct congressional subpoenas? He didn't block witnesses from testifying?

If that's true, then why haven't we seen those emails or heard that sworn testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton?

Read the transcript. The rest is just hearsay. And not good hearsay at that. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

The transcript is not verbatim. More was edited out than was required by intelligence overseers. But he still screwed up by showing that he was using his office for personal gain.

WTF are you talking about - provide proof of everything you just accused Trump of doing. Go ahead - You don't have shit dude. Trump will be re elected so start crying now. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Oh, there is that faux hurt again.
You have to take care of old business ellen. I see nowhere that you answered when Mexico is paying for the Wall or admitting he lied. There are no other options that have been presented. Occams Razor.

So, using an old quote round these parts, "WTF are you talking about - provide proof of everything you just accused Trump of doing. Go ahead - You don't have shit dude. Trump will be re elected so start crying now."

Let's see your proof Mexico is paying for the Wall. After you take care of old business, you can fairly ask something.

Oh well. I believe in innocence before proven guilty.
And again - Trump doesn't have to prove he is innocent. Ask any lawyer.

Ok - Iowa - any predictions? That's wild out there. I think it will be Bernie or Biden. But Bernie may get screwed again if Warren's votes go to Biden. It's a tossup. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

It's hard to prove guilt when a trial is not conducted.

....So you're saying he didn't obstruct congressional subpoenas? Originally Posted by Dev Null

I'm saying they were not subpoenas. They were requests for shiftt and schtuff. Recall, the House deliberately decided to keep it as an "inquiry" instead of an "investigation", by avoiding a vote on investigation, thus neglecting to gain "the force of law" that a subpoena would carry.

I'm saying they were not subpoenas. They were requests for shiftt and schtuff. Recall, the House deliberately decided to keep it as an "inquiry" instead of an "investigation", by avoiding a vote on investigation, thus neglecting to gain "the force of law" that a subpoena would carry. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Interesting. You might want to check out "The Man in the High Castle" since you're obviously such a big fan of speculative fiction and historical fantasy.

You would have been right at home in the "Ministry of Truth" in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.