Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Nope, just like the rest of the Trump defenders here, you're simply in denial, Tea. If Trump without justification shot and murdered someone on 5th ave in broad daylight, you and MM would still try to rationalize it as legal. He defined you, his supporters, during his campaign. Little did we recognize at the time how well he really knew you.
    Wash rinse repeat - you get all excited over the new shiny bombshell and all defensive when it turns into yet another dud.

    And this time, it's gonna be a whooping goose egg. You forget - I wanna see what happens when the garbage the House threw together hits a real trial with real evidentiary standards. Oh and FYI - since Bolton wasn't subpoenaed by the House good luck convincing a judge he's now somehow necessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Doesn't prove the elements of an actual crime - or even of an abuse of power.

    You wanna prove Trump did something wrong then prove - not infer - PROVE intent. It's one of the two critical elements (the other being which election) that hasn't even been addressed in any manner other than pure speculation.
    Nope, just like the rest of the Trump defenders here, you're simply in denial, Tea. If Trump without justification shot and murdered someone on 5th ave in broad daylight, you and MM would still try to rationalize it as legal. He defined you, his supporters, during his campaign. Little did we recognize at the time how well he really knew you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    In the trial CJ Roberts will make that call. I'm not worried about it. He's left enough breadcrumbs that he's not prepared to incinerate his place in history for Trump.
    Probably not - it would likely be heard by the Court itself as a pretrial motion and Roberts might choose to recuse himself from that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    Sorry I missed this. In the future if I miss one of your posts you want me to reply to feel free to send me a PM.



    You probably already know how I feel about attempts at outing the WB. I watched the clip in that article and if that's the example you lead with...



    I admit I didn't catch as much of the Judiciary hearing as the others. Is Schiff even on the Judiciary Committee? In any case, there was lots of efforts of Republicans to disrupt that hearing. So I image that, and the faux outrage when their bad faith disruptions were shut down, is what you're remembering. I'm open to being proven wrong, but the fact that half of the day was spent on the Barron / baron joke leads to believe there was little legitimate outrage.

    If you find a video clip of Republican questioning from that hearing being shut down I'll take a look though.



    Ok, what *relevant* witnesses were denied? Hunter Biden? I said someone *other* than him to being with! Even if HB was dirty he *still* would have been an irrelevant witness.

    There were valid reasons not to bring the WB into that hearing, not the least of which everything he reported has since been confirmed by witnesses with more direct knowledge of his claims.

    Sorry :/.
    Schiff leads Intel; he's not on Judiciary.

    Ciaramella is not entitled to whistle blower status as he contacted Schiff's office BEFORE filing the complaint which voids the claim. Other than to protect Schiff's misconduct, there's no valid reason to exclude Ciaramella as a witness even if he were entitled to whistle blower protection. None.

    Much of the complaint has been discredited, not confirmed. Worse, it reads like a lawyer wrote it or helped a lot.

    Biden would be a witness toward motive and should not be excluded in a fair proceeding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    Is the only person you're willing to listen to about what is right and wrong Trump? Not Bolton, not Republican senators who would probably have a much easier working relationship by silently nodding at everything McConnell says? Other than Trump who could actually convince you that what Trump did was wrong?

    "Trust, but verify" is as far as I'm willing to take it with politicians. I just don't get it. I can't imagine living my life that way.
    Doesn't prove the elements of an actual crime - or even of an abuse of power.

    You wanna prove Trump did something wrong then prove - not infer - PROVE intent. It's one of the two critical elements (the other being which election) that hasn't even been addressed in any manner other than pure speculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I was never against it, at least in principle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Good to see you on board with calling witnesses in the Senate trial.

    --Sam
    I was never against it, at least in principle. The question has always been whether or not the Democrats will be able to deliver a compelling enough opening argument to convince a simple majority of the Senate that the trial should go forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Let's wait for the cross examination and vetting process before making any declarations about the quality of this evidence. I mean, a handwritten note with little asterisks on it? What, like he was going to forget and had to jot it down on hotel stationary? Who knows when it was really written, and for what purpose.
    Good to see you on board with calling witnesses in the Senate trial.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    How nefarious of them to insinuate actions and motivations that Giuliani publicly asserted in May. How clever to release documents showing Trump associates planning to pressure Zelensky for investigations and stalking a US ambassador.

    A true conspiracy.

    --Sam
    Let's wait for the cross examination and vetting process before making any declarations about the quality of this evidence. I mean, a handwritten note with little asterisks on it? What, like he was going to forget and had to jot it down on hotel stationary? Who knows when it was really written, and for what purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    As always, required reading for anybody who wants to understand what's really going on:
    How nefarious of them to insinuate actions and motivations that Giuliani publicly asserted in May. How clever to release documents showing Trump associates planning to pressure Zelensky for investigations and stalking a US ambassador.

    A true conspiracy.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    I predict this thread will become a ghost town really quick. We'll see :).
    I am not optimistic, as that would require that new information be absorbed when so many still have not incorporated the old, even after extensive repetition.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    As always, required reading for anybody who wants to understand what's really going on:

    Yesterday’s ridiculous, albeit proactive, New York Times narrative about Russians hacking Burisma now makes sense. Today the Lawfare team (Mary McCord et al) within Adam Schiff’s impeachment crew send additional files of evidence (pdf below) to be included in the impeachment articles constructed by HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler.

    ...

    It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

    The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Aditionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.

    So the proactive democrat strategy was/is to use the New York Times presentation of Russia hacking Burisma to negate the provenance of the evidence against the Bidens. In essence, to cast doubt upon any documents that would show Joe and Hunter Biden participating in an actual influence and money-laundering scheme.

    ...

    The SDNY created legal leverage upon Lev Parnas using the familiar strategy of charging “FARA violations”, as noted in the background of the House explanation.

    The purpose was/is to extract anything from Parnas that could be twisted or construed to show evidence that Rudy Giuliani was working on behalf of President Trump to pressure Ukraine into investigating Burisma, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nce-to-nadler/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    What laws, if any, is the Trump administration being accused of breaking?

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    I predict this thread will become a ghost town really quick. We'll see :).

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    On the merits of impeachment:

    Here's a letter Giuliani sent to Zelensky (and apparently copied to Lev Parnas), asking for a meeting May 13 or 14. Giuliani takes pains to note that he is asking as Trump's personal attorney, not in pursuit of Trump's presidential duties, and that the meeting has Trump's full knowledge and consent. We know the context of the proposed meeting because Giuliani was telling NYT reporters around May 9 that he was traveling to Ukraine in order to push for investigations into Biden and Burisma for his client (Trump):

    Source: Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump. Ken Vogel. NYT. 2019.05.09

    Mr. Giuliani’s plans create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign. And it comes after Mr. Trump spent more than half of his term facing questions about whether his 2016 campaign conspired with a foreign power.

    “We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel’s inquiry.


    “There’s nothing illegal about it,” he said. “Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

    © Copyright Original Source




    EORxb-rWoAM-1Tl.jpg

    Other documents released by HPSCI today indicate that Parnas and Robert F. Hyde, an American Trump ally running for Congress, were having Ambassador Yovanovitch's movements in Ukraine tracked and Hyde is on record talking about people in Ukraine "willing to help if you'd like a price" and how "[g]uess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money".

    Trump personally gave John Dowd permission to represent Parnas and Fruman, who have said they were working directly with Giuliani in Ukraine.

    Upshot: Giuliani, in May, was seeking a meeting with Zelensky to restart investigations into the Bidens as a personal and explicitly not as a presidential matter for Trump. Parnas, Giuliani, Trump, and others would continue to pressure the Zelensky administration for the public announcement of this investigation through September 7, when Trump told Sondland that Zelensky had to "get in front of the cameras".

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
42 responses
230 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
32 responses
173 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
285 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X