| There are 34 comments on this blog. |
|
|
I hate Trump but your facts are all opinions, nothing more nothing less.
"The Democrats had no choice because he committed impeachable offenses. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact. Countless historians, judges, politicians of all flavors said as much."
Nancy Pelosi had a choice, eventually after cycling thru collusion, bribery, quid pro quo, and many more, she/they settled on 2 weak articles with no specific crime cited.
There is no one that deserves the stain of Impeachment on his legacy more than Trump but this was an amateur hackjob that will most certainly lead to not guilty in the Senate, increased fund raising by Trump and a second term.
Along with the shit show of possible Dem nominees, you nitwits have practically guaranteed this POS another 4 years. If the AOC crew are the future, you'll be lost in the wilderness another 40 years.
Congratulations, you won a skirmish and are losing the war.
|
|
|
There is a reason they call them legal opinions. And there are multiple legal scholars on the other side that are saying just the opposite. One being Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor, Emeritus. Who is a Democrat and politically left.
So people tend to go with the “opinion” of people that support their desired outcome.
Both have solid reasoning... but the realty is... the actual facts are on Trump’s side.
1. Investigation and/or announcement never took place.
2. Aid arrived earlier than originally scheduled.
3. Not a single witness testified, “I heard Trump say, hold back the aid until the investigation takes place or is announced.” They all testified, I think (or I heard) he ordered the aid delayed as a quid pro quo.
4. Two witnesses testified that Trump said, “No quid pro quo.”
5. The Ukrainian President clearly said, “I didn’t feel pressure. I was not aware the aid was being delayed. There was no quid pro quo.
Now, you can choose to believe all of that is bullshit. I believe a lot of it is bullshit. But believing and proving are two different things.
The argument then is... “Well, the witnesses that might have testified to what Trump actually said weren’t permitted to testify at the hearings.”
There is a legal remedy for that... but Nancy chose not to pursue it because it didn’t fit her timeline. She wanted it done quickly before the Christmas break. I think she thought the accusations and innuendo would be enough to turn public opinion. She gambled... and she lost. Public Opinion went the other way. She actually lost 4% of Democrats (72% down to 68%) 10% of independents (54% down to 44%) and 6% of the “undecideds” (51% down to 45%) and solidified the Republicans (87% up to 94%)
She won over no one. The only people still with her are the ones who were already with her before there was any actual evidence submitted.
I think Trump did it. I think he tried to use his power to to push an investigation of a political opponent.
But thinking I know why he did it is not enough to impeach him.
|
|
|
i liked all the connections to the previous dem administrations...they have never ever brought anything forward in either investigation that did not have HRC or obama taint
|
|
|
Give me a break. Biden doesn’t even know what State he is in half of the time. He appeals to the stupidest part of our Society. No offense OP, but that would include you
|
|
|
I’m sorry KS, but you’re wrong there. 50.2% of Americans support Impeachment and removal as of today and 46.5 % are against. I don’t know how to post a link but it’s from the same site you sent out the other day.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/
|
|
|
"The Democrats had no choice because he committed impeachable offenses. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact."
Not true. Just because they have evidence (arguably) that was SUFFICIENT for an impeachment, doesn't make it NECESSARY to impeach. As I have been pointing out, they could have gotten bipartisan support for a censure, probably from both houses of Congress. Attempting to build bipartisan support in Congress would have been the way to go if they really were more interested in checking the power of the President (on the issue of his attempting foreign interference in elections) than in being political and punting to the November election. The President does NOT want to lose the support of his Republican Senators.
"Impeachment is a political process. It played out the exactly the way it’s supposed (or was designed to). "
Yes, impeachment was designed to be political, but not THIS political. Impeachment wasn't designed with hyperpartisanship in mind. Impeachment ultimately was seen by the framers as a method to check the power of the Presidency, not for one political party to gain political power over the other. Political parties weren't even in the picture in 1787.
"And that’s the disadvantage some of us have; we think that facts, truth and science matter."
No, you cherry pick your facts, truth, and science based on convenience to back up what you believe in. This, in some ways, is more dangerous than outright lying, because it's harder to disprove your points when you do use facts.
|
|
|
And I’m sorry I can’t give you an appropriate rebuttal right now but the 2 most credible witnesses, ie direct knowledge, said yes there was a quip pro quo. This includes a guy that Trump appointed and who donated 1 million to his campaign. As you can tell by the news trickling out Trump was the guy at the center of the fund hold. Everyone was acting at his direction. People even told him this was illegal but he didn’t care. I will bet you a penny to the dollar Bolton would testify get said as much to Trump.
You may say you don’t support impeachment and I can accept that but by law, that’s an impeachable offenses. And So is obstructing Congress.
|
|
|
Just because Congress does not want to take the time and ask the Judicial to chime in does not make it obstruction.
|
|
|
And if there is a quid pro quo asking for dirt on Biden, instead of investigating corruption, that should come out.
|
|
|
@NR
Not even sure what you’re talking about. If Trump is impeached then Pence is president. Last I checked, he’s a Republican. The balance of power doesn’t not change. In fact, it gives Pence a chance to pardon Trump, which is probably a good scenario for him. The NYDA will be arraigning Trump as soon as he’s not longer president.
|
|
|
You are talking about Soneland or whatever his name was... and he said he believed it was quid pro quo even though the president said directly to him, “no quid pro quo.”
He is the only one other than Mulvaney and possibly Bolton who had a direct conversation with Trump about the Ukrainian aid. Everyone else “heard” that the president said.
Soneland also is the one who said after he got off of the phone, “ Trump only does what benefits Trump.” Which was his opinion.
People use hyperbole and it kills their argument.
|
|
|
The Democrats, Schiff and Pelosi, made a huge error. They never even subpoenaed Bolton. He reportedly had first hand knowledge that could implicate or exonerate Trump. As I mentioned before he was a private citizen at the time. Now he says he would testify! They rushed the thing thru like others have said. Maybe they could put on additional testimony in the house but since the House already voted probably too. Late. It looks like there will not be testimony in the Senate. The Dems have only themselves to blame.
|
|
|
Come on Lou, you totally know Trump was not interested in corruption. We can disagree but let’s at least be honest.
And second, Congress has a constitutional mandate of oversight of the executive. It does not need to go to court to enforce subpoenas. If you ignore a congressional subpoena, you are in contempt of Congress and that is a crime.
|
|
|
@ GS. Impeachment by the Dems is all about winning the 2020 Presidential election. That's really what it comes down to. The party whose President was impeached or resigned from office has always lost the following Presidential election. Think the long game:
1. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, was impeached in 1868. Republicans won the Presidency in 1868.
2. Nixon, a Republican, resigned from office in 1974. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, won the Presidency in 1976.
3. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached in 1998. George W. Bush, a Republican, won the next Presidential election in 2000.
4. Donald Trump, a Republican, was impeached in 2019. Who will win in 2020?
|
|
|
@Don, again they don’t need to subpoena Bolton, his non-compliance, at the order of the President constitutes obstruction of justice, which is the second article of impeachment.
The way it works the impeachment is like an arraignment. You don’t have to prove the crimes, only establish probable cause. At the trial then you prove the crimes. There is no way, Trump fans notwithstanding, you guys can tell me with seriousness that there is no probable cause.
That’s part of the problem. most people don’t understand the impeachment process. Right now, all the Democrats are saying is that Trump has likely committed crimes and he’s standing in our way. That’s all. Now it’s up the Senate to really look into it and for The House to prove its case (if the Senate lets them though)
|
|
|
@night. You bring a valid point. It may indeed be the Democrats play. The roles were reverse,’the same thing would happen. answer me this, replace Trump with Obama and Pelosi with Boehner. Same call to a foreign president and same obstruction, wouldn’t we be where we are today?
I’m saying yes we would and should be. What do you think?
|
|
|
'If Trump is impeached then Pence is president' He has been impeached. It's more like an indictment than an arraignment. The trial will be in the Senate. But your'e right most people including you don't understand.
|
|
|
"I’m saying yes we would and should be. What do you think?"
I'm saying yes, but I would have much rather preferred that Congress enacted the bipartisan censure that I brought up. Let the President know he's alienating Republicans by calling for foreign government interference, and he's more likely to stop, which is the whole point of Congress checking the power of the President. Enough with the partisan games.
|
|
|
Yes Night I would have agreed with this course of action. I’ve stated many times before, while I think the president committed impeachable offenses, I am against impeachment. It divides the country too much.
|
|
|
+10000000000000000000
|
|
|
@skitter sorry, the impeachment is only official when the articles are submitted to the Senate. So technically he’s not been impeached yet but you probably knew that already, right. It must be nice to be you.
|
|
|
I hope you realize that in my country, the ones supporting impeachment would all be rounded up and imprisoned, or worse, until the next party gained power. Then the ones formerly convicted would be released, put in power and there would be a cycle of revenge.
The USA has been very good to me. I can speak my version of what I believe is true, without the consequence of my family being rounded up and questioned if they believe the same way as me.
My observance of these impeachment events represents a dysfunctional government. If I suggested that of my home country’s government (Singapore) I would be arrested, detained and caned for such an indiscretion.
Americans are lucky that they can disagree, discuss, rationalize, and argue without such consequences.
|
|
|
Fun huh?
|
|
|
"And second, Congress has a constitutional mandate of oversight of the executive. It does not need to go to court to enforce subpoenas. If you ignore a congressional subpoena, you are in contempt of Congress and that is a crime."
Executive branch exerted executive privilege. Congress says you dont get it. It's up to Judiciary to decide, not congress.
|
|
|
'Executive branch exerted executive privilege. Congress says you dont get it. It's up to Judiciary to decide, not congress.'
FACT!
|
|
|
"@skitter sorry, the impeachment is only official when the articles are submitted to the Senate. So technically he’s not been impeached yet but you probably knew that already, right."
Wikipedia disagrees with you on that one GS. I've heard Tribe, Dershowitz, Turley and more all have a different opinion about whether impeachment has occurred or not, but I'm comfortable that it has, given the voting recorded, regardless what Nancy does now.
As for congressional oversight, it is not explicit in the constitution but "implied" and upheld by Supreme Court case law. What has also been upheld by the Supremes since George Washington first invoked it is "executive privilege." So, pay attention when local legal scholar loucifir speaks.
The Don may be right, that had they waited, the Dems may have had better testimony from people who were actually there like Somdland. Somdland, who said clearly in his testimony, that he assumed Trump meant QPQ but when he asked the direct question of Trump, Trump said "no quid pro quo."
Quid pro quo is all bullshit anyway. Somebody, please share with us the citation for quid pro quo as a crime in any federal or state jurisdiction. Don't bother looking, it's not there.
If you're willing to get your dick dirty, there's no one that deserves an ass fucking more than Trump. But the Dems couldn't find their dicks on this ocassion.
Don't look now, Bernie is coming on the outside rail and the Dem establishment is getting very nervous. This is gonna get interesting.
|
|
|
100% right Lou and Angler1. But congress chose not to go that route and just declared it obstruction of justice. It’s their prerogative. But again, the impeachment is just an “indictment” or “probable cause “ or an “accusation”. Pick your favorite word. Then it’s up to the Senate to decide if indeed obstruction of justice occurred. That’s how it’s designed any way.
|
|
|
They may as well impeach him for having orange hair. No crime, but they can do it.
|
|
|
Well remember Lyndsay Graham once said impeachment is about cleansing the office of the presidency and a crime doesn’t even have to be committed.
In this case you have to admit at the very least there is probable cause.
|
|
|
obstruction of Justice could be proved if subpoenas were served on witnesses and the President basically stopped them from testifying. Even if he considered it a witch hunt, subpoenas must be obeyed. But Congress refused to hold any witnesses in contempt as far as I know. Also in order to be able to lawfully avoid a subpoena one must make a motion to quash or nullify that, most likely in a federal court. That was not done to my knowledge. But if witnesses were not subpoenaed then I do not see how obstruction can be proved. Like I said before, the Dems May have screwed up
|
|
|
100% right Lou and Angler1. But congress chose not to go that route and just declared it obstruction of justice
Wrong! Congress is not the Judiciary, therefor it was not obstruction of Justice.
There is no "Obstruction of Congress". The Judiciary branch settles arguments between the Executive and Congress.
|
|
|
“obstruction of Justice could be proved if subpoenas were served on witnesses and the President basically stopped them from testifying. Even if he considered it a witch hunt, subpoenas must be obeyed.”
Not if executive privilege is exerted. Then there is a disagreement between the subpoena issuers and the executive.
Even when a court of law issues a subpoena, the subpoena itself can be challenged and the ruling can then be appealed to a higher court.
It happened with the San Bernardino Shooter and Apple. A judge issued a subpoena that Apple provide the FBI with the information to unlock the shooter’s phones. Apple said, “No. Sharing that information with anyone breaches the trust our users have in Apple when it comes to privacy.” They appealed to the judge. The judge ruled against them, so they appealed to a higher court. Somewhere during that process, the FBI was provided the info by a 3rd party (Israeli company that figured out how to hack into an iPhone)
No where in that process could Apple be charged with “obstructing justice.” Only if they had exhausted all legal challenges and still refused could they be charged.
Congress, like the lower courts can’t demand anything they want and everyone needs to bend over just because it’s Congress.
Congress can subpoena a witness that is an aid to the President to testify about matters related to the president. The president can say, “No, I am exerting Executive Privilege.” All that means is the president needs to be able to have candid conversations with his staff, aids and cabinet without worrying about it being used against him. If it can be, then it limits the options he is able to consider. He needs to be able to discuss good ideas, bad ideas, dangerous ideas even ideas that turn out to be illegal. Every good leader wants to discuss as many possible options as they can.
The reason Nancy Pelosi didn’t go the legal route is because she probably would have lost. President Obama and the Justice department defied congressional subpoenas for over 2 years concerning info related to the Fast n Furious Gunwalking program. He wasn’t charged with “obstructing congress.” Do you think the Republicans didn’t want to charge him? They threatened... but knew they would lose because Executive Privilege is a well established and tested legal privilege.
|
|
|
BTW, Congress cannot hold a witness “in contempt” if there is a claim of Executive Privilege working through legal challenges.
Congress can Subpoena me to testify. I can just say, “No.” And they can hold me in contempt. I can also submit what I (my lawyers) believe their subpoena should not be honored. At that point a legal challenge can begin. Either congress agrees with my challenge or they don’t and they take action to compel my testimony.
This is one of the reasons Congress alone cannot finish the impeachment and removal process. The articles go to the Senate to be tried.
Nancy already knows she won’t win. And not only because Republicans control the Senate, but because they are going to lose the obstruction argument and the hearings didn’t produce EVIDENCE of illegal activity.
Dumb activity... yep.
Political activity... Imagine that.
But they have here say and innuendo.
As I said earlier somewhere... I think the Dems are right with some their accusations concerning Ukraine. They just can’t prove it.
|
|
|
To sum it all up, Biden is
Lost , guilty of Quid Pro Quo in Ukraine and too old to beat any Republican. Trump had every right to investigate that corruption. Ukraine and the US have a treaty that they are required to investigate corruption in both countries. There is no crime and there can’t be obstruction to cover up of a non crime. Trumps corporate tax cuts have made the country prosper. Money cannot trickle up. The only thing the Dems have to offer is welfare and homelessness as championed by Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome. Again, pay your on way losers
|
| There are 34 comments on this blog. |
