Impeachment

AOC Says Impeachment Necessary to Unite Dems, Stop ‘Potential Compromise of the 2020 Election’

It's obvious what is happening and it's so sickening... impeachment is just another tool now. And they have the balls to say Trump is subverting our Democracy which we are not anyway.

“At the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus, and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House,” Ocasio-Cortez told Wolf Blitzer, who asked the Congresswoman whether she hoped other potential violations by Trump would be considered in any articles of impeachment.

“. . . We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” Ocasio-Cortez ended. “And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”
 
I35 said:
Joe, have you heard what’s suppose to be a bombshell report coming from Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank records? Showing a foreign slush fund controlled by Devon Archer, John Kerry Sr, John Kerry Jr, Heinz Jr, Hunter Biden?

Not trying to get ahead and be wrong.
Click to expand...

I posted something about that yesterday - but I was out today so not caught up - went to see Midway
 
I35 said:
I must’ve missed it. I’ll go back and look. Is it here in this topic?
Click to expand...

Joe Fan said:
This might make things a little more interesting tomorrow morning
Click to expand...


Would like to know 2 parts --

(1) Did Joe get any of it? Whether it was to his "Family Trust," or the "Biden Foundation"(lol), or his retirement account - whatever (Cayman Islands holla!); and

(2) Were any of these funds a kickback of aid paid by US taxpayers? (bc it appears we* gave quite a bit to Burisma, for some reason, under some bogus "Clean Energy" title -- the people who did this are the same people bitching at us about Global Warming all the time. Furthermore, no matter where the money went and who got it, why are we giving money to Burisma at all? They generate a ton of their own cash already)
* "we" here means Obama​

And here is the new thread

 
Last edited:
The bribery claim is now being shouted all over the media by the Dem's It's a coordinated attack facilitated by the media. It's a panic.
 
bystander said:
The bribery claim is now being shouted all over the media by the Dem's It's a coordinated attack facilitated by the media. It's a panic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw Nancy this morning - she was flopping around all over the place

I dont think she thought much of Schiff's Day One Show. Based on the expression on her face, her fidgeting and the sweat, I think she is discovering that, outside their little secret basement echo-chamber, their claims against the President are not resonating with anyone. Maybe she knew it going it, she did sort of seem reluctant at times. But if she didnt before, she does now. They oversold the idea of impeachment, and only a few outside their corrupt coterie are buying it

That said, I would expect them to improve as this goes along -- Nancy will probably make Schiff start listening to smarter people about how to do this
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
AOC Says Impeachment Necessary to Unite Dems, Stop ‘Potential Compromise of the 2020 Election’

It's obvious what is happening and it's so sickening... impeachment is just another tool now. And they have the balls to say Trump is subverting our Democracy which we are not anyway.

“At the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus, and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House,” Ocasio-Cortez told Wolf Blitzer, who asked the Congresswoman whether she hoped other potential violations by Trump would be considered in any articles of impeachment.

“. . . We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” Ocasio-Cortez ended. “And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”
Click to expand...
Because ken Starr and newt were such above board and righteous mother ******?
 
OUBubba said:
Because ken Starr and newt were such above board and righteous mother ******?
Click to expand...

You're too political. You're playing that game. Whatever happened with Starr is not worth revenge today against Trump. It's just not. But you are telling us that you are ok with it because you've sized up something IN TOTAL that happened over twenty years ago and wish to apply it to today's standards.

I like to think that I've evolved. I'm sure you think that way of yourself. When does the "they did it too" end? I recall when the Tea Party was forcing the sequester and shutting down the government over the debt ceiling. The response was that the Republicans had asked for debt ceiling increases in the past. And I remember thinking, "Well hell, how high is too high? When do we not raise the debt ceiling?" NEVER? Is that what we should stipulate? Just keep spending like a drunk in Vegas?

SO! What's right? Deal with right and wrong on this board and not the gamesmanship we know is happening. That is where I'm coming from.

Based upon the sudden bribery accusations I'd say this impeachment hearing process has been a disaster for the Democrats and it's because they are as corrupt as they believe Trump to be.

But ask yourself this: Did Bill Clinton commit perjury or not? It seems it is very clear that he did. The process as f'd up as it was revealed the high crime or misdemeanor. But he survived.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
....You cheered Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, antifa, Christine Blasey Ford, Mueller, Comey, "the Emoluments Clause," the pee-pee bed and Barry Switzer.
Click to expand...

I somehow forgot another guy you hitched your schooner to, the creepy porn lawyer


9479746.gif
 
The only thing saving Trump is that the Dems are worse. I knew this from the get-go, which is why I supported Trump from the start when he got the nomination (I didn’t vote for him in the primary). I get crap from Deez, SH, etc for supporting Trump but I only have to wait a little while for confirmation that the other side is worse (Schiff, Comey, Brennan, Stroyk, Kavanough confirmation travesty). I’ve been correct for almost 4 years. What is your track record (asking into the aether)? LULZ!!!!!!!!
 
nashhorn said:
You get around Mc.
Click to expand...
China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Russia, Beirut (airport only - long enough), etc. You know, all the global hotspots. Never been to Africa or South America though. For a while, I was following all the terrorist bombings in some of those locales (London bus, Moscow airport, Bangkok, Jakarta, Riyadh, Beirut, etc.). I find my travels safer than driving in Houston.
 
Joe Fan said:
Yeah, I saw Nancy this morning - she was flopping around all over the place

I dont think she thought much of Schiff's Day One Show. Based on the expression on her face, her fidgeting and the sweat, I think she is discovering that, outside their little secret basement echo-chamber, their claims against the President are not resonating with anyone. Maybe she knew it going it, she did sort of seem reluctant at times. But if she didnt before, she does now. They oversold the idea of impeachment, and only a few outside their corrupt coterie are buying it

That said, I would expect them to improve as this goes along -- Nancy will probably make Schiff start listening to smarter people about how to do this
Click to expand...

Here is a clip of her -- her new idea is that it up up to the defendant to prove his innocence (like much of the rest of their proceedings, this is not in the Constitution either). In her esteemed opinion, it is up to Trump to prove the negative. She barely made it through having to pronounce "exculpatory."

 
mchammer said:
The only thing saving Trump is that the Dems are worse. I knew this from the get-go, which is why I supported Trump from the start when he got the nomination (I didn’t vote for him in the primary). I get crap from Deez, SH, etc for supporting Trump but I only have to wait a little while for confirmation that the other side is worse (Schiff, Comey, Brennan, Stroyk, Kavanough confirmation travesty). I’ve been correct for almost 4 years. What is your track record (asking into the aether)? LULZ!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
If the Dems could stop acting like corrupt Washington insiders for 12 months, they would win 2020. Alas, that is evidently too much to ask.
 
bystander said:
The bribery claim is now being shouted all over the media by the Dem's It's a coordinated attack facilitated by the media. It's a panic.
Click to expand...

I remember when the MSM had just a liberal bias. Now they lie/spin and are pretty much an extension of the democrat party.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
You're too political. You're playing that game. Whatever happened with Starr is not worth revenge today against Trump. It's just not. But you are telling us that you are ok with it because you've sized up something IN TOTAL that happened over twenty years ago and wish to apply it to today's standards.

I like to think that I've evolved. I'm sure you think that way of yourself. When does the "they did it too" end? I recall when the Tea Party was forcing the sequester and shutting down the government over the debt ceiling. The response was that the Republicans had asked for debt ceiling increases in the past. And I remember thinking, "Well hell, how high is too high? When do we not raise the debt ceiling?" NEVER? Is that what we should stipulate? Just keep spending like a drunk in Vegas?

SO! What's right? Deal with right and wrong on this board and not the gamesmanship we know is happening. That is where I'm coming from.

Based upon the sudden bribery accusations I'd say this impeachment hearing process has been a disaster for the Democrats and it's because they are as corrupt as they believe Trump to be.

But ask yourself this: Did Bill Clinton commit perjury or not? It seems it is very clear that he did. The process as f'd up as it was revealed the high crime or misdemeanor. But he survived.
Click to expand...
It was a five year investigation to get to that. Remember, I never voted for Bill. I just think it laughable that people like lindsey graham and trey Gowdy are such hypocrites.

Trumps actions here are worse than watergate.
 
OUBubba said:
It was a five year investigation to get to that. Remember, I never voted for Bill. I just think it laughable that people like lindsey graham and trey Gowdy are such hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Barry, I'm going to throw this at you every time. He committed a felony. He didn't jaywalk or commit public urination. He committed a felony. That's the big thing that Lindsey Graham, Newt, and Kenneth Starr had that you all don't - at least not now.

What you have is a quid pro quo for foreign aid, despite the denials from Trump. All by itself, that's not illegal or even unethical or improper. In fact, we want that. To establish anything nefarious about it, we need specifics about Trump's intent in holding up the money, and nobody who has testified publicly has been in a position to offer that. George Kent wasn't in such a position. Bill Taylor wasn't in such a position. And I'm not here to smear them. I have no reason to believe they are anything but honorable public servants, but they have very little to offer beyond speculation peppered with very attenuated hearsay that would a judge would never allow to be considered.

We need to hear from the real people involved, and they weren't it. Maybe they should have been, but they weren't. And no amount of spin or outrage from Adam Schiff, the Washington Post, and CNN is going to change that as hard as they're trying. I can argue passionately that I'm 6'6", but the measuring tape says I'm only 5'11". My passion isn't going to change that.

OUBubba said:
Trumps actions here are worse than watergate.
Click to expand...

How can you say that? You don't know, and it's not because you're dumb or went to Oklahoma (pardon the redundancy). It's because you can't know, because you haven't heard from anybody who was in a position to know. Will Gordon Sondland, Mick Mulvaney, or Rudy Giuliani know? Maybe, but until we hear from one or all of them, you can't render any judgment beyond your partisan prejudice. And by the way, neither can I. That's why I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent yet. I don't know.

And Nancy Pelosi is a dumbass for raising this bribery talk. You know why? Because bribery requires very clear proof of intent. We've heard no intent evidence at all, because we haven't heard from anyone who would have knowledge of intent. She raised the bar on herself.
 
bystander said:
The bribery claim is now being shouted all over the media by the Dem's It's a coordinated attack facilitated by the media. It's a panic.
Click to expand...

And politically, it's really, really stupid. Proving an improper quid pro quo is a much easier case to make, because you don't have a defined statute. You can sorta lump it under "abuse of power" and impeach over it. If you suggest bribery, the level of proof is much higher. If you read the federal bribery statute, it has a lot of elements to it and lots of wiggle room. She's making her job harder. It's like charging a guy who drives drunk and kills someone with murder rather than intoxication manslaughter. You're gonna have your work cut out for you.
 
mchammer said:
The only thing saving Trump is that the Dems are worse. I knew this from the get-go, which is why I supported Trump from the start when he got the nomination (I didn’t vote for him in the primary). I get crap from Deez, SH, etc for supporting Trump but I only have to wait a little while for confirmation that the other side is worse (Schiff, Comey, Brennan, Stroyk, Kavanough confirmation travesty).
Click to expand...

I don't give you crap for supporting Trump. You can support anybody you want. I also never disagreed that the Democrats are generally worse than Trump.

The dispute was whether or not I should get crap for taking a "none of the above" stance and choosing not to be part of either **** show. Of course, I got different a range of treatment. You, I35, Joe, Garmel, and Brad Austin vitriolically gave me an enormous amount of crap for several months. Horn6721 gave me a little but far less. Eye, UTChe, and Sangre seemed to generally respect my approach even if they disagreed with it.

The point is that you (and others) were the crap-flinger. I wasn't.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Eye, UTChe, and Sangre seemed to generally respect my approach even if they disagreed with it.
Click to expand...
Disagreed? Nope. I did what you did: voted Libertarian. I've voted L for POTUS in every election since I voted for Bush the elder in 1984.

That's going to change next November though.
 
I posted one Rivkin piece above on the Constitutionality of what was going on at the time. I dont think it got any replies here but that article definitely got the attention of the DC crowd. IMO, that article plus the concurrent event of Matt Gaetz' interruption of Schiff's secret basement SCIF circus ("the Storming of the Bastille") are the two primary events that finally flushed Pelosi and Schiff out into the open - like roaches scurrying when the lights come on. Prior to this, Pelosi and Schiff had basically had 6 weeks in a row of "free kicks on goal" against Trump without much pushback.

So now here is another by Rivkin, this time attacking Schiff's idea that a President defending himself is criminal obstruction. Rivkin worked for both Reagan and the first Bush. He's in DC now with BakerHostetler. He is the one who got the individual mandate part of Obamacare ruled unconstitutional at the trial court level.

"Schiff’s ‘Obstruction’ Theory -- If he were confident in his legal position, he’d want to put the case to a judge. Yet he seems desperate not to."​

Is it an impeachable offense for a president to resist impeachment? House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff told CNN last week that White House officials’ refusal to testify in his committee’s impeachment probe could lead to “obstruction of Congress” charges against President Trump. At a press conference last month, he warned the White House against trying to “stonewall our investigation” and said: “Any action like that, that forces us to litigate or have to consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”....​

Since the WSJ often hides stuff behind a wall, I am posting the full thing here. It addresses legal/executive privilege in the context of what Pelosi/Schiff are trying to do here. Since his last article created such a stir, maybe some of yall will be more interested in this one. It's not that long. And FWIW, I dont fully agree with some of the things Rivkin writes in a couple of the last 3 paragraphs, but read it for yourself --

Schiff’s ‘Obstruction’ Theory
If he were confident in his legal position, he’d want to put the case to a judge. Yet he seems desperate not to.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Nov. 14, 2019 7:02 pm ET

Is it an impeachable offense for a president to resist impeachment? House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff told CNN last week that White House officials’ refusal to testify in his committee’s impeachment probe could lead to “obstruction of Congress” charges against President Trump. At a press conference last month, he warned the White House against trying to “stonewall our investigation” and said: “Any action like that, that forces us to litigate or have to consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

He’s wrong. In the absence of a definitive judicial ruling to the contrary, the president has a well-established constitutional right—even a duty—to resist such demands. The Constitution authorized the House to impeach the president if it has evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but it does not require the president, who heads an equal branch of government, to cooperate in gathering such evidence. Accordingly, the Trump administration has refused to honor various document-production requests, and has instructed some current and former officials to ignore committee subpoenas.

Not all officials have complied with this instruction, but those who have—including former national security adviser John Bolton, former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and deputy White House counsel John Eisenberg—are acting lawfully and appropriately.

It has long been established that the president, and by extension his advisers, have two types of immunity from making disclosures to Congress. One applies to national-security information, the other to communications with immediate advisers, whether related to national security or not. Both immunities, when applicable, are absolute, which means they can’t be trumped by competing congressional needs.

The national-security privilege was most definitively explained in a 1989 memorandum from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It noted that the privilege is anchored in the longstanding right “not to disclose state secrets,” first asserted by President Thomas Jefferson and affirmed by the courts in 1807. Although the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an assertion of executive privilege for all presidential communications in U.S. v. Nixon (1974), it “unmistakably implied,” according to the OLC memo, “that the President does enjoy an absolute state secrets privilege.”

The privilege for communications with the small group of senior White House staff who are the president’s immediate advisers is equally well-grounded. The OLC first fully articulated it in 1971 under future Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The office has reaffirmed it many times under presidents of both parties in response to all manner of congressional requests.

The privilege is premised on the Constitution’s separation of powers: “The President is a separate branch of government,” a 1982 OLC memo put it. “He may not compel congressmen to appear before him. As a matter of separation of powers, Congress may not compel him to appear before it.” The president’s immediate advisers are effectively his alter egos. Compelling them to appear is the equivalent of compelling him.

This point bears emphasis. Congress also has absolute privileges from interference with its operations, including the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause. Under that protection, lawmakers may defy the executive branch—for example, by publicly reading classified information into the congressional record—and they have done so.

Both privileges apply to the situation at hand, in which Congress seeks information from Mr. Trump’s most senior advisers about sensitive issues of national security. Ultimately, the courts must determine whether the president may invoke these privileges and whether his advisers must comply with the Intelligence Committee’s demands. Mr. Kupperman has brought a lawsuit challenging the subpoena, which is now pending before Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Schiff appears to have little confidence in his legal position, because he attempted to make the case moot by withdrawing the Kupperman subpoena. House lawyers asked the court to dismiss the action on that ground. Judge Leon refused.

The House claims it doesn’t want judicial review because of another pending lawsuit involving a subpoena. But that case is materially different. It was brought before the impeachment inquiry began and involves efforts to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about the firing of James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and matters related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. It raises no question of national-security immunity, so it cannot resolve the question with respect to Mr. Kupperman—at least not in Mr. Schiff’s favor.

The House majority’s effort to avoid adjudication of its demands for testimony presents another key problem. Under Mr. Schiff’s legal theory of what constitutes an impeachable offense, the House must demonstrate that the president has engaged in quid pro quo conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, where U.S. military aid was allegedly withheld to secure cooperation in investigating Hunter Biden’s association with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. Mr. Trump vigorously denies that he intended to withhold U.S. aid.

His state of mind is of utmost importance to the House’s case. Yet, the only witnesses who have provided testimony on the question had little if any direct contact with the president. Advisers like Messrs. Bolton, Kupperman and Mulvaney, by contrast, would have been in daily contact with him. If House Democrats are serious about impeaching Mr. Trump for his dealings with the Ukrainian president, obtaining a judicial ruling that they are entitled to this critical testimony should be their top priority.

Mr. Schiff’s claim that Mr. Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense if he “forces us to litigate” is preposterous. It is the president’s right and obligation to protect the institution of the presidency from inappropriate congressional demands. If Mr. Schiff believes he is right on the law, he should welcome the opportunity to put his case to a judge. His refusal to do so exposes the entire exercise as a partisan sham.
 
Last edited:
Sangre Naranjada said:
Disagreed? Nope. I did what you did: voted Libertarian. I've voted L for POTUS in every election since I voted for Bush the elder in 1984.

That's going to change next November though.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, why change now?

Also, why didn't you take as much BS as I did??? I got friggin skewed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top