Impeachment

Horn6721 said:
by
That must be very uncomfortable for the rest of your family. You seem able to see if for what it is.
I can never remember family members being so vile and ugly as is happening now where people feel free to say anything insulting and mean they wish
Click to expand...

It is. We can't have a reunion. It's too much. Unfortunately my own mother has been sucked into it. She's a huge Trump fan and they have all blocked each other.
 
I just read the transcript. I saw a mention of "Crowdstrike" by Trump along with the tag line of "if it's possible" meaning he hope's the Ukraine President checks out Crowdstrike. No mention of the Biden's.
Click to expand...

To be fair, bystander, POTUS did mention the Bidens:

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
Click to expand...
 
A new Quinnipiac poll is out:

-- Independents against impeachment: 58%-36%

-- Voters are more positive about the economy than at any time in last 18 years: 73% say economy is excellent or good ​
 
7pm
Part 1
Revealed: Ukrainian Witnesses Destroy Schiff’s Case

8pm
Part 2
Revealed: Ukrainian Witnesses Destroy Schiff’s Case

9pm
Part 3 (Debut)
Revealed: Ukrainian Witnesses Destroy Schiff’s Case
Click to expand...

Watch now as [guy who favors my team] says THIS that absolutely DESTROYS [guy who favors the other team]!
 
I have a pretty politically balanced friend who says (and I paraphrase):

"Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo because he clearly mentioned the Biden's, the aid had been held-up and was soon released after he became aware of the whistle-blower".

He sees these as undisputed facts that in concert point to intent.
 
This whole saga reminds me of the Democrat email release and the rigging of the primary. The wrong doing was ignored, but the information release was seen by the media/dems as the real wrongdoing.

I know I killed my wife, but my friend had no right to send my email confession to you.
 
The actual Richard Jewell makes it sound like the FBI has not changed one bit since they wrongly had him in their crosshairs

 
bystander said:
,,,,"Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo because he clearly mentioned the Biden's, the aid had been held-up and was soon released after he became aware of the whistle-blower".
Click to expand...

The timing part has always been a red herring. There was always a hard deadline for release of the aid of Sept 15 (I think it was technically released a few days later). The deadline is a Congressional appropriations rule -- I cant remember the acronym for that rule right now. But it was always going to be released at least by that date.
 
Joe Fan said:
The timing part has always been a red herring. There was always a hard deadline for release of the aid of Sept 15 (I think it was technically released a few days later). The deadline is a Congressional appropriations rule -- I cant remember the acronym for that rule right now. But it was always going to be released at least by that date.
Click to expand...

Not doubting you my friend but I'd like to see a link on that hard deadline. It would be good for him to consider. He's interested in these things as am I. I think he is capable of going with the truth regardless of who is getting gored.
 
bystander said:
Not doubting you my friend but I'd like to see a link on that hard deadline. It would be good for him to consider. He's interested in these things as am I. I think he is capable of going with the truth regardless of who is getting gored.
Click to expand...
Is he incapable of finding the truth himself?
 
bystander said:
Not doubting you my friend but I'd like to see a link on that hard deadline. It would be good for him to consider. He's interested in these things as am I. I think he is capable of going with the truth regardless of who is getting gored.
Click to expand...

The acronym for this will come to me - its a use it or lose it hard deadline - otherwise the set aside funds go back the UST (or maybe "stay with" the Treas is the better way to say it). I think the way it works is that earmarked money must be spent before the end of the fiscal year which is Sept 30 ("use it or lose it"). But there is another fixed requirement that a 2-week prior notice be given to the Congress, which effectively moves the effective "hard deadline" to Sept 15

 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
The acronym for this will come to me - its a use it or lose it hard deadline - otherwise the set aside funds go back the UST (or maybe "stay with" the Treas is the better way to say it). I think the way it works is that earmarked money must be spent before the end of the fiscal year which is Sept 30 ("use it or lose it"). But there is another fixed requirement that a 2-week prior notice be given to the Congress, which effectively moves the effective "hard deadline" to Sept 15

Click to expand...


See link:

The Hold On Ukraine Aid: A Timeline Emerges From Impeachment Probe

Fiscal YE was/is Sept 30. Also, we "shorted" them $35 million which apparently was re-appropriated by Congress.

Two questions then:

1) Did Ukraine know we had to release the money by 9/30?
2) Why did we wait until the last minute to release it?
 
Joe Fan said:
A lot of this will be up to John Roberts. The Senate is just the jury. Roberts is the trial court judge in a courtroom with not much in the way of established rules or tradition.

If the trial is going to be dismissed before a final vote by the Senate, then (I think) it will have to be on a motion by the House Republicans. So Roberts will first have to agree to hear the motion, then he will have to rule on it (does that sound like John Roberts to you?).

In order for this to happen, they will first have to agree upon rules that allow for a motion (are Senate Rs smart enough to establish rules that allow for pretrial and mid-trial dispositive motions?). I hope they simply adopt and incorporate the FREs and FRCPs, because if they do, I can map out a resolution for you pretty quickly. But we wont know what rules they are going to use until they actually tell us. There is no "book" for this.
Click to expand...

I brought the idea up above that Rs might move to dismiss either
(a) On the pleadings
(b) After the conclusion of the plaintiff's case (here House Dems)
(c) At conclusion of the trial before it "goes to the jury"

Here, Mitch on the Senate floor, deals with the idea of a motion to dismiss. He's responding to Schumer's letter, by pointing to all of Schumer's hypocrisy and inconsistency with regard to Bill Clinton, but he deals with other history as well

 
Joe Fan said:
It was released Sept 11, I think. Why does Ukr knowledge matter?



It's a giant bureaucracy. Stuff likes this happens every day. Obama missed a funding deadline to Ukraine by 3 weeks or more. It didnt matter then. Why is it relevant now?
Click to expand...

I thought there would be no leverage if Ukraine knew the funds were required by law to be released by Sept 30th. If both Trump and the Ukraine knew this (implicit in the conversation though not specifically stated) then Trump's "favors" were just that; requests, but not extortion or the like.
 
Joe Fan said:
It's a giant bureaucracy. Stuff likes this happens every day. Obama missed a funding deadline to Ukraine by 3 weeks or more. It didnt matter then. Why is it relevant now?
Click to expand...

Well, duh...orange man bad. Didn't you KNOW this?

Obummer is more of a teflon man than Gotti EVER was...
 
I have a pretty politically balanced friend who says (and I paraphrase):
"Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo because he clearly mentioned the Biden's, the aid had been held-up and was soon released after he became aware of the whistle-blower".
Click to expand...

Geez it sounds like you were in the car with me and a friend last night. He said exactly the same thing, but added that Trump was guilty of abuse of power because he targeted a political rival. I asked, if no one is above the law, then why is Hunter Biden supposed to get a pass just because his dad is running for POTUS? He could not answer.
 
bystander said:
I thought there would be no leverage if Ukraine knew the funds were required by law to be released by Sept 30th. If both Trump and the Ukraine knew this (implicit in the conversation though not specifically stated) then Trump's "favors" were just that; requests, but not extortion or the like.
Click to expand...

After all of this, the latest is that it sounds like both Mitch and Lindsey are willing to dump the whole thing with no witnesses. Which is in conflict with what Trump is asking for. He wants the Full Monty. He wants vindication and complete obliteration of the Dem's case for all the world to see.

For me, if we must go this far, as it appears we must, I would at least want to see the whistleblower and Schiff, under oath. The whistleblower started this whole thing. He should not get to slide through it all with zero public appearances, zero testimony under oath and zero confrontation with a good attorney for the person he sought to have banished. People familiar with him say he wont last long in the face of a good cross. The American people deserve and, I would argue, need to see that. They need and deserve to learn of his political biases, his deep animus towards Trump and his close personal ties to John Brennan. Do him and Schiff, then wrap it up.


giphy.gif
 
Joe Fan said:
After all of this, the latest is that it sounds like both Mitch and Lindsey are willing to dump the whole thing with no witnesses. Which is in conflict with what Trump is asking for. He wants the Full Monty. He wants vindication and complete obliteration of the Dem's case for all the world to see.

For me, if we must go this far, as it appears we must, I would at least want to see the whistleblower and Schiff, under oath. The whistleblower started this whole thing. He should not get to slide through it all with zero public appearances, zero testimony under oath and zero confrontation with a good attorney for the person he sought to have banished. People familiar with him say he wont last long in the face of a good cross. The American people deserve and, I would argue, need to see that. They need and deserve to learn of his political biases, his deep animus towards Trump and his close personal ties to John Brennan. Do him and Schiff, then wrap it up.


giphy.gif
Click to expand...


I think we all deserve to see the bias and Biden's role fully explored on national TV.
 
Lindsey Graham did invite Rudy to come before the Senate Judiciary and share his findings on Ukraine. But not during the impeachment hearing
 
The FBI is the enemy of the people. You remember back in the day when they were pressuring MLK to kill himself? They have been bad for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top