Impeachment

[OUBubba]

When you can read what I posted and comprehend it correctly, let me know.

This:
"Yawn.

House did its job in those proceedings. Senate did not give in to the shoddy rush job by Shifty and his co-conspirators."
What am I missing? You don't think the House did their job. I'm of the opinion that they did enough to indict. Lev Parnas, John Bolton, etc. could have added more to the discussion. And, much of what they could have added was unknown until after the House had sent their case to the Senate. Harris County indicts someone for hacking a bank and stealing $1,000,000 they don't limit the trial to only evidence and witnesses that were known at the time of the arrest and indictment, right? If new evidence comes to light it is examined via depositions and shared with each legal team.

Yawn. Sweep the criminal activity under the rug at your peril. What we know is that more and more information will come out.

 

[bystander]

So, you feel like they were historically wrong in both previous impeachments by calling witnesses in the Senate?

I think what he is saying is that the House rushed the process due to political considerations and then tried to make demands upon the Senate to do what they should have done to begin with. So then the Senate said, "FU," we're not falling for your attempts to intimidate us (nor Roberts; see Warren's stupid question) and we will go on what YOU impeached him on with YOUR process and YOUR witness (or lack thereof).

 

[horninchicago]

I think what he is saying is that the House rushed the process due to political considerations and then tried to make demands upon the Senate to do what they should have done to begin with. So then the Senate said, "FU," we're not falling for your attempts to intimidate us (nor Roberts; see Warren's stupid question) and we will go on what YOU impeached him on with YOUR process and YOUR witness (or lack thereof).

Glad to see, as expected, you comprehended it correctly.

 

[OUBubba]

I think what he is saying is that the House rushed the process due to political considerations and then tried to make demands upon the Senate to do what they should have done to begin with. So then the Senate said, "FU," we're not falling for your attempts to intimidate us (nor Roberts; see Warren's stupid question) and we will go on what YOU impeached him on with YOUR process and YOUR witness (or lack thereof).

What I see him saying is the facts are irrelevant if you didn't jump through all the hoops to try to gather them yourself. If you subpoena Bolton he'd already said he was going to go to court. That was not going to work. The good news is that John Bolton is shown to be craven and cynical and a great representation of the modern GOP - Trump's greatest ally until you don't kiss his 6'1" 269 pound gel shaped arse. Then you're part of the deep state.

 

[horninchicago]

What I see him saying is the facts are irrelevant if you didn't jump through all the hoops to try to gather them yourself. If you subpoena Bolton he'd already said he was going to go to court. That was not going to work. The good news is that John Bolton is shown to be craven and cynical and a great representation of the modern GOP - Trump's greatest ally until you don't kiss his 6'1" 269 pound gel shaped arse. Then you're part of the deep state.

That is the process. Same with subpoenas and the BS obstruction of Congress. Allow the third Branch to settle those disputes, as intended.

So what you see me saying is wrong.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What I see him saying is the facts are irrelevant if you didn't jump through all the hoops to try to gather them yourself.

The facts aren't and can't be known if you don't jump through the hoops.

 

[horninchicago]

The facts aren't and can't be known if you don't jump through the hoops.

You have comprehension skills, too. I knew that though.

 

[huisache]

by this point in time the facts are pretty well developed and I am with Lamar Alexande--- he misbehaved but should not be removed from office.

My thoughts on Trump are that he ran a fraudulent university that bilked the students, is a real estate huckster, is a serial braggart and has no business in a position of authority. But, there is no consensus in the nation as a whole that he should be removed and so the haters need to wait until November.

Too bad they don't have a decent alternative as yet

 

[mchammer]

by this point in time the facts are pretty well developed and I am with Lamar Alexande--- he misbehaved but should not be removed from office.

My thoughts on Trump are that he ran a fraudulent university that bilked the students, is a real estate huckster, is a serial braggart and has no business in a position of authority. But, there is no consensus in the nation as a whole that he should be removed and so the haters need to wait until November.

Too bad they don't have a decent alternative as yet

How are your investments?

 

[4th_floor]

It's ridiculous to ignore it. Clinton's impeachment had witnesses that did depositions. I think Andrew Johnson's had 26 witnesses and 17 of them were not witnesses in the House. Call it what you will but it's not wanting to know the facts.

What "facts" are you thinking will come out? If Bolton did get to testify (He couldn't because of executive privilege), he might say he thought Trump wanted to withhold military aid solely to hurt Biden. But how would Bolton know Trump's intent? It wouldn't be a fact. it would be an opinion.

What if you somehow did uncover a real fact that proved Trump's intent to withhold aid? So what? He didn't follow through withholding aid. I don't care about intent if there is no act.

I should just shut up and let you Dims flail away at Trump. It's helping Trump and will likely help the GOP hold the Senate and take the house back.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What "facts" are you thinking will come out? If Bolton did get to testify (He couldn't because of executive privilege), he might say he thought Trump wanted to withhold military aid solely to hurt Biden. But how would Bolton know Trump's intent? It wouldn't be a fact. it would be an opinion.

It depends on the specifics of what Bolton says. If he truly just offers opinion, then I would agree. However, the whole point of calling Bolton is to elicit testimony that is fact-based. For example, suppose he testifies that Trump told him that this was about screwing with Biden and that he didn't care about dealing with corruption in Ukraine. That isn't opinion. That's Trump telling him his intent.

 

[4th_floor]

It depends on the specifics of what Bolton says. If he truly just offers opinion, then I would agree. However, the whole point of calling Bolton is to elicit testimony that is fact-based. For example, suppose he testifies that Trump told him that this was about screwing with Biden and that he didn't care about dealing with corruption in Ukraine. That isn't opinion. That's Trump telling him his intent.

You are correct that it would not be an opinion. But it would not be a verifiable fact, unless there was some evidence to support the conversation between Trump and Bolton. In other words, Bolton could lie under oath which is very possible.
Would that be hearsay evidence? Is hearsay evidence considered factual?

 

[4th_floor]

You are correct that it would not be an opinion. But it would not be a verifiable fact, unless there was some evidence to support the conversation between Trump and Bolton. In other words, Bolton could lie under oath which is very possible.
Would that be hearsay evidence? Is hearsay evidence considered factual?

I probably have watched too many episodes of Law and Order.

 

[OUBubba]

What if you somehow did uncover a real fact that proved Trump's intent to withhold aid? So what? He didn't follow through withholding aid. I don't care about intent if there is no act.

Attempted [insert crime here] is not a crime now?

 

[Mr. Deez]

You are correct that it would not be an opinion. But it would not be a verifiable fact, unless there was some evidence to support the conversation between Trump and Bolton. In other words, Bolton could lie under oath which is very possible.

He could lie, and it would be up to the fact finders to decide who's telling the truth and who is not.

Would that be hearsay evidence? Is hearsay evidence considered factual?

It would not be hearsay. The rules of evidence specifically exclude from the definition of hearsay "admissions by party opponents." The reason why is that the party is present in the courtroom and can explain or controvert the statement.

 

[4th_floor]

Attempted [insert crime here] is not a crime now?

Attempted [withholding U-Crane aid to hurt the campaign of sleepy Joe] is not a crime now and has never been a crime.

 

[4th_floor]

It would not be hearsay. The rules of evidence specifically exclude from the definition of hearsay "admissions by party opponents." The reason why is that the party is present in the courtroom and can explain or controvert the statement.

I stand corrected.

 

[bystander]

Attempted [insert crime here] is not a crime now?

Did he say "No investigation announcement, no aid."

 

[horninchicago]

Yes, if Bolton said trump was pressuring Zelensky, that would apparently trump what Trump and Zelensky say.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is the full Mitch today (16m total), making sense again

 

[Joe Fan]

Or, some short clips if you prefer - each one is 1:05 or less

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

This is factual and stunning
MUST SEE: 2020 State of the Union Address Teaser -- President Donald Trump's 27 Top Accomplishments -- In Video
can't wait to see an orange man bad post from the haters.

 

[huisache]

Mitch seems to confuse the Constitutional Senate with the publicly elected pack that we’ve had for the last century. Apples and oranges.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Mitch seems to confuse the Constitutional Senate with the publicly elected pack that we’ve had for the last century. Apples and oranges.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

We passed three garbage amendments in a row - 16th, 17th, and 18th. At least we had the sense to dump the 18th.

 

[ShAArk92]

We passed three garbage amendments in a row - 16th, 17th, and 18th. At least we had the sense to dump the 18th.

plus the Fed Reserve Act

This is when we took a sharp turn AWAY from the Constitution and fostered the big central government we all now "enjoy."

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Doug Jones' senatorial career is now over
R's pick up a seat

 

[Horn6721]

JF
I watched Jones lie and slam Trump then say he hopes the POTUS can try to come together>