Impeachment

[Mr. Deez]

I'm saying the spineless Rs in the Senate seem to be letting the Dems run the show. Allowing this charade.

So if they allow any witnesses, they're "letting Dems run the show?"

 

[horninchicago]

So if they allow any witnesses, they're "letting Dems run the show?"

I think you have already stated the House should have done that, correct? Not saying the Senate shouldn’t all witnesses. Saying the House managers shouldn’t e trying to dictate who they call.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

for the same reason I don't feel sorry for a guy who slams a bottle of Wild Turkey, drives around for an hour and gets injured in a wreck.

Now that's an analogy Bubba can relate to.

 

[Joe Fan]

Fauxcahontas has a question, sort of
Or maybe she is making a joke after downing a beer, hard to tell

 

[humahuma]

Big picture, even if President Trump did tie the money to the investigation, I am ok with that. There are conditions for our money. I want to know if a sitting VP and son were extorting a gas company in another country. I don’t care if it was last year or 40 years ago. That to me is high crime.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think you have already stated the House should have done that, correct? Not saying the Senate shouldn’t all witnesses. Saying the House managers shouldn’t e trying to dictate who they call.

Then why not let both sides call witnesses as I've suggested? That is what would happen in a real courtroom.

 

[Crockett]

To a centrist it would seem pointedly partisan to have an insider willing to testify ignored when we could hear the facts on an important issue of vast interest to the electorate.

 

[horninchicago]

Then why not let both sides call witnesses as I've suggested? That is what would happen in a real courtroom.

Because the House should have followed all avenues to all who they wanted? What do i know? I’m a pilot.

 

[mchammer]

To a centrist it would seem pointedly partisan to have an insider willing to testify ignored when we could hear the facts on an important issue of vast interest to the electorate.

Because the articles are not impeachable. Doesn’t matter what the witnesses say. As long as there was a thread of national interest, it’s not impeachable

 

[Crockett]

I heard Dershowitz say that. Applying that standard , Nixon would have been in the clear.

 

[Joe Fan]

Jan 31, 2020 has the chance to go down as a big day in history --

-- Trump acquitted (hopefully by midnight) after 3 years of fake attacks
-- Great Britain finally leaves the EU to finish off BREXIT ​

In both cases, the will of the people will have beaten back the Establishment, something that seemed close to impossible just 5 years ago


This is Mississippi Aug 2016

 

[UTChE96]

I'm not necessarily a Romney guy either. However, I have a hard time faulting him for supporting the calling of witnesses, regardless of the Democrats' partisan hackery. Keep in mind what Trump's position is. He's arguing that it was a "perfect call" and there was no quid pro quo. It's a stupid defense, but that's what he's going with.

I agree that Trump has made some boneheaded mistakes in this entire debacle. I think part of the problem is Trump came from a world where he was the unquestioned dictator accountable to no one. He has continued behaving that way as President.

My issue with Romney is that even if you agree with everything that the Impeachment managers are charging, the offense is not worthy of removing an elected POTUS from office especially not right before an election. Sen Alexander basically said that he agrees that Trump did everything he is being charged with but will still vote against witnesses for that very reason. Considering witnesses only helps Dems continue this partisan hack job.

I do not believe that Romney is making a principled stand here either. He was more than willing to interview for the Sec of State position even after he made a vicious (and mostly true) attack on Trump's character back in 2016.

 

[Joe Fan]

Did you know (or care) that Joe Biden wrote a 4-page memo to the rest of the Senate arguing against any witnesses at the Impeachment Trial back in 1999?

“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

“In light of the extensive record already compiled, it may be that the benefit of receiving additional evidence or live testimony is not great enough to outweigh the public costs (in terms of national prestige, faith in public institutions, etc.) of such a proceeding. While a judge may not take such considerations into account, the Senate is uniquely competent to make such a balance.”​

https://static.politico.com/1e/c3/c1f5b0e64288babbba06da2e401a/0247-001.pdf

ps -- you will also take note that Biden agrees exactly with what I told you above, that the factual record in the Clinton Impeachment was "extensive"

Joe Biden is, of course, singing a different tune today

 

[OUBubba]

I heard Dershowitz say that. Applying that standard , Nixon would have been in the clear.

Dersh is such a dirtbag. It's taken a decade or so longer but he's really gone to seed like old Rudy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Because the House should have followed all avenues to all who they wanted? What do i know? I’m a pilot.

But is the fact that they didn't sufficient reason to deny that information to the ultimate decision-makers and the public? I have a hard time making that leap.

 

[OUBubba]

I think it's laughable that you guys think Clinton should have been impeached over lying about a hummer yet, now that all of this is true, it's "not impeachable".

 

[OUBubba]

To a centrist it would seem pointedly partisan to have an insider willing to testify ignored when we could hear the facts on an important issue of vast interest to the electorate.

Using such logic is frowned upon in this forum. You've been warned.

 

[bystander]

Using such logic is frowned upon in this forum. You've been warned.

So you think the desire to publicly air the he said she said testimony of someone who stands to profit from his testimony is logic?

 

[Horn6721]

LOL so Nadler rushes to get last word in as Schiffty tries to stop him calling, Jerry Jerry Jerry


there are pics of the rest of the house team and esp. the White House team laughing

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think it's laughable that you guys think Clinton should have been impeached over lying about a hummer yet, now that all of this is true, it's "not impeachable".

Barry, it is more defensible than those who took the reverse position, because the facts of this matter aren't known. I don't think it's defensible to deny the public and the Senate access to the facts.

 

[theiioftx]

Fauxcahontas has a question, sort of
Or maybe she is making a joke after downing a beer, hard to tell

I wish Roberts would have said what he was thinking when he stared her down, then held her in contempt with removal to a cell until the end of the process.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wish Roberts would have said what he was thinking when he stared her down, then held her in contempt with removal to a cell until the end of the process.

There is a ******** narrative that has been pushed for about the last ten years by the media, law school facilities, and the political class that a conservative court will be less legitimate than the previous liberal court was. It's intended to incite people to reject and attack future court decisions, and this is what the "Pretend-ian" is doing. And of course, it is *** backwards. Nothing is less legitimate than a court that believes it effectively isn't bound by the written law.

 

[Joe Fan]

I wish Roberts would have said what he was thinking when he stared her down, then held her in contempt with removal to a cell until the end of the process.

I think he was just wishing he were home instead
With his cats

 

[Joe Fan]

I think it's funny how these CNN types say "they" when referring to Democrats
Why not just give up the pretense and say "we?"

 

[Joe Fan]

Steve Bannon says he pushed for Eric Ciaramella to be removed from the National Security Council in 2017 while he was in the White House --

"Steve Bannon said in an interview that when he was at the White House in 2017, he was involved in an effort to remove an intelligence officer suspected of being the Trump whistleblower from the National Security Council due to concerns about leaks.

“When I was in the White House there was a number of people in the National Security Council — the named individual eventually got let go, I believe because people were suspicious, not me, but other people around him were suspicious about his leaking, and that’s why he was let go,” Bannon, who served as White House strategist through August 2017, said in an interview with VICE published Friday.
* * *

“I don’t think the individual naming of the whistleblower is important, although there was a story in The Washington Times … that tied me to the efforts to get, at least, the gentleman who was named out of the National Security Council,” said Bannon, who left the White House on Aug. 18, 2017.

“Is that true?” a VICE reporter asked Bannon.

“The individual that was named, absolutely true,” he replied......"​

Steve Bannon Says He Pushed For Alleged Whistleblower To Be Removed From National Security Council

 

[4th_floor]

I think it's laughable that you guys think Clinton should have been impeached over lying about a hummer yet, now that all of this is true, it's "not impeachable".

Hey if Billy boy were simply lying to reporters about the "hummer", then you would be correct. But he lied under oath about the hummer and asked Lewinsky and other staff to lie. If Hillary had allowed him to settle the lawsuit, none of this would have mattered. I personally think that perjury is an impeachable offense. Semi-forcing You-Crane to investigate corruption shouldn't be an impeachable offense.

 

[OUBubba]

So you think the desire to publicly air the he said she said testimony of someone who stands to profit from his testimony is logic?

I figure hearing from a fact witness would be good in a trial. His testifying would likely negatively impact his profits.

 

[OUBubba]

There is a ******** narrative that has been pushed for about the last ten years by the media, law school facilities, and the political class that a conservative court will be less legitimate than the previous liberal court was. It's intended to incite people to reject and attack future court decisions, and this is what the "Pretend-ian" is doing. And of course, it is *** backwards. Nothing is less legitimate than a court that believes it effectively isn't bound by the written law.

I'm unpretendian. There are many, many people in Oklahoma with her narrative - my mother's family fitting into that group.

 

[Garmel]

The problem with Bolton's assertion is that Ukraine has already said there was no quid pro quo and no pressure. Somehow people quit paying attention to the main witnesses in this case and want to go with the guy trying to sell a book.

 

[Joe Fan]

Jan 31, 2020 has the chance to go down as a big day in history-

-- Trump acquitted (hopefully by midnight) after 3 years of fake attacks.....​