Impeachment

Garmel said:
Reality? You don't even have a clue to what reality is. Here we have a sitting president who was found not to have done anything illegal. The only thing against him is a whistleblower using second hand information and you're perfectly fine with an impeachment inquiry? You're not living in reality. You're an MSM bot.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been determined yet but if you want to string together leaps of the Grand Canyon in your arguments that is your prerogative.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Nothing has been determined yet but if you want to string together leaps of the Grand Canyon in your arguments that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...

Everything i said is 100% true. The DOJ found nothing illegal. We have the transcript. Only an idiot could find a quid pro quo in there. The fact that we're using second hand sources really tells me how political and desperate all of this is.
 
mb227 said:
There are reasons that hearsay is generally not admissible. This is no different than Little Susie telling people she heard from her boyfriend's sister's cousin's mother's grandfather.
Click to expand...

IG Atkinson and Acting DNI Maguire both agreed the complaint was "credible and urgent".
 
Seattle Husker said:
IG Atkinson and Acting DNI Maguire both agreed the complaint was "credible and urgent".
Click to expand...
Which is NOT the same as saying something is admissible...

Think of it along the different standards that come with the stages of a criminal prosecution...what it takes to make an arrest is NOT the same as what it takes to get an Indictment and an Indictment is NOT evidence of a crime.

But such notions seem to be too profound for the left to grasp...
 
Garmel said:
What am I supposed to wake up to? Start buying into the ******** that you buy into? The fact that you can't recognize how the media manipulates you is your problem.
Click to expand...
But, but, but....they heard it on NPR and then it was parroted on CNN, so it MUST be true.
 
mb227 said:
Which is NOT the same as saying something is admissible...

Think of it along the different standards that come with the stages of a criminal prosecution...what it takes to make an arrest is NOT the same as what it takes to get an Indictment and an Indictment is NOT evidence of a crime.

But such notions seem to be too profound for the left to grasp...
Click to expand...

Are you confused that someone has been indicted? Who? We already know that the POTUS can't be indicted (thanks to the Mueller investigation) while holding office. See the Civics 101 post above for the Constitutional remedy for this situation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Are you confused that someone has been indicted? Who? We already know that the POTUS can't be indicted (thanks to the Mueller investigation) while holding office. See the Civics 101 post above for the Constitutional remedy for this situation.
Click to expand...
If you’d listen to Mark Levine on the radio, you would have known before the Mueller report that a sitting president can’t be indicted.
 
mchammer said:
If you’d listen to Mark Levine on the radio, you would have known before the Mueller report that a sitting president can’t be indicted.
Click to expand...

I'd also "know" that Iraq did in fact have WMDs, Obama is Kenyan and the Deep State is out to take down Trump. All theories advanced by Levin.

Your influences are coming into focus @mchammer.
 
'He Had Help': Former CIA, NSC Official Questions 'Too Convenient' And 'Too Perfect' Whistleblower Report

Summary of Twitter tweets (ZH just the publisher):

The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.

Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'd also "know" that Iraq did in fact have WMDs, Obama is Kenyan and the Deep State is out to take down Trump. All theories advanced by Levin.

Your influences are coming into focus @mchammer.
Click to expand...
Your Iraqi WMD reference belies your ignorance. The fabled WMD report from the US gov admitted that Hussein could resurrect his WMD program in MONTHS once sanctions were removed, which is what the Europeans wanted (sorry, I was referring to the UN staffers that were bribed to allow others to gain access to the lucrative oil for Hussein program.)
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Are you confused that someone has been indicted? Who? We already know that the POTUS can't be indicted (thanks to the Mueller investigation) while holding office. See the Civics 101 post above for the Constitutional remedy for this situation.
Click to expand...
Clearly the use of an analogy is too complex for you to discern...sorry your education failed you so miserably.
 
A few interesting tidbits from Maguire's testimony:

"stressed that the complaint was essentially "hearsay" and not “corroborated by other folks.”"

"This is second-hand information from a whistleblower."

"Maguire stressed that the committee now has all of the relevant information, including the whistleblower complaint itself that was released publicly Thursday morning."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for me stringing together leaps of the Grand Canyon. LOL!

He was pressured constantly by the dems to recommend an investigation. He stayed completely neutral through the testimony.

This report was hearsay and can not be corroborated.

To me this all smells rotten to its core.

Intel chief defends handling of Trump call complaint, spars with Schiff in tense hearing
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Edit- Help me understand this, @Mr. Deez

I know this is not a court but how is someone relying upon hearsay considered credible?
Click to expand...

Because something can be true even if it's based on hearsay. The reason why hearsay isn't generally (there are exceptions) admissible in court is that the party against whom the hearsay evidence is being offered doesn't get a chance to cross examine or scrutinize that evidence. Furthermore, there's no way to prove that the person offering the hearsay is being honest about the actual contents of the hearsay. However, those concerns are mitigated quite a bit when we're only talking about launching an investigation (or impeachment inquiry) rather than putting someone's life, liberty, or property in jeopardy as they are during a court proceeding.

Would I vote to impeach Trump based on the complaint? Hell no. After all, anybody can write a complaint. I'd have to see the evidence the whistleblower relied upon to issue his complaint first hand. That means witnesses would have to be called and cross examined - not just the whistleblower himself but the "multiple US government officials" he claims he relied upon. We're a long, long way away from making any serious decision. Frankly, I'm skeptical of the complaint at this point. His description of the phone call had significant spin and made the call sound a lot more sinister than it actually was. He basically described everything the way CNN, the DNC, or the New York Times would.

Having said that, I'm not ready to call this a "nothingburger." All by itself, the phone call doesn't outrage me. I'm not a fan of it, but without a quid pro quo (which there doesn't appear to be), it's not something to freak out about any more than we freaked out about the Democrats hopping in the sack with the Ukraine.

More concerning to me is Giuliani's involvement. Why the hell is he even in this? He's not a diplomat. He's not a White House official. Unless there's an official proceeding in the Ukraine involving Trump personally, I don't see why he should be anywhere in the equation. I don't even have a big problem with wanting the Biden matter investigated in the US and in the Ukraine. I do think it smells funny, but if that's going to happen, it should be done by government officials through the normal channels - not by some latter-day Ray Cohn breaking balls under the table. If there's any fire to this, I think his involvement is where it lies, and it doesn't bother me to look into it. If Trump doesn't like being investigated, stop doing and saying stupid ****.
 
Zelensky brought up the first mention of Guiliani. He said, "...one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Guiliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Guiliani will be able to ravel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine."

The way the Dems characterize it, along with most media, you would think trump first mentioned Guiliani, not the other way around.
 
horninchicago said:
Zelensky brought up the first mention of Guiliani. He said, "...one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Guiliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Guiliani will be able to ravel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine."

The way the Dems characterize it, along with most media, you would think trump first mentioned Guiliani, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

You're right that Zelensky brought him up, but why is he even involved for anyone to bring him up?
 
Garmel said:
We'll have to agree to disagree then. IMHO, Trump hasn't done anything worth an investigation.
Click to expand...
While I agree with the fundamental premise there, one cannot dispute that the PotUS has had his multiple moments of saying stupid shiznit...and he needs to quit doing that. Save that for his memoirs...you know, the ones that will be the greatest memoirs EVER LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top