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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That's apparently how Bolton described it, and he's welcome to his opinion, but it doesn't prove a crime.
    The crime is bribery. The evidence is crystal clear, but it is true that you need an expert to explain it. If you listen to the trial, you will hear that case made, so that you will understand it.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
      The crime is bribery.
      At least that's what tested well in the focus groups, although curiously, the Democrats failed to include it in the articles of impeachment.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
        MM, what evidence short of Trump admitting "Yes, I did criming" would convince you? Ask me what would convince me of X/Y/Z and I can probably give you some sort of answer. Why won't you answer that question?
        I told you exactly why:

        You're asking me to idly speculate about evidence that has not been presented and may never be presented. I consider that a waste of mental energy.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hilly Hobbit View Post
          I told you exactly why:

          You're asking me to idly speculate about evidence that has not been presented and may never be presented. I consider that a waste of mental energy.
          You're spending your days trolling multiple message boards. You've got the time and energy.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
            You're spending your days trolling multiple message boards. You've got the time and energy.
            Because that doesn't require much mental energy. I've mentioned before that the Trump presidency is a rich field for thoughtful discussion, but his critics would rather chase after Russian geese and Ukrainian rabbit trails while chanting "Orange man bad!" rather than discuss anything substantive.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              At least that's what tested well in the focus groups, although curiously, the Democrats failed to include it in the articles of impeachment.
              It is definitely in there; the elements of bribery are there and that combination is called bribery whether or not it is named as such in the articles. It is bribery by definition.

              The Repubs know it’s in there and that is why they are scared of witness testimony and documented proofs, which do exist but are so far being withheld by the POTUS and his henchmen. They will try to fudge the issue.
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                It is definitely in there; the elements of bribery are there and that combination is called bribery whether or not it is named as such in the articles. It is bribery by definition.

                The Repubs know it’s in there and that is why they are scared of witness testimony and documented proofs, which do exist but are so far being withheld by the POTUS and his henchmen. They will try to fudge the issue.
                Right...

                "We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"

                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Right...

                  "We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"
                  We have already shown Trump is guilty, but need the first hand evidence Trump is hiding to force the GOP's hand on the issue.

                  Fixed if for you NC.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Right...

                    "We could totally prove Trump is guilty if only we had the evidence to prove it!"

                    We know the story. The Senate Repubs are pretending that the proofs don’t exist by refusing to hear the witnesses. Witnesses would prove the case just as in any normal trial. Several witnesses have not been heard because Trump told them not to speak to the House.
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                      We know the story. The Senate Repubs are pretending that the proofs don’t exist by refusing to hear the witnesses. Witnesses would prove the case just as in any normal trial. Several witnesses have not been heard because Trump told them not to speak to the House.
                      Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating. They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating. They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."
                        Yeah, it does work that way, MM. You're no different than the Senate Repubs. You know the story too, and you're pretending the proofs don't exist, and like them, you don't want to hear the witnesses like in a normal trial. Right now we have a corrupt Administration, a corrupt Attorney General, and a cowardly and complicit Republican party who are all violating their oath to the Constitution. And you are right there in their corner my friend, suaving their wounds and cheering them on in their dirty fight. You must be so proud!

                        Comment


                        • Nunes was in on the “drug deal”.

                          House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trump’s personal attorney and an aide to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee regarding the effort to obtain material from Ukrainian prosecutors that would be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.


                          The text messages between Lev Parnas, who functioned as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunes’s office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president — and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering.
                          WaPo
                          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                          “not all there” - you know who you are

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Nah, it doesn't work that way. The problem is, the Democrats couldn't even say which specific crime it was they were supposed to be investigating.

                            They started with the presumption that the President must be guilty of something, and they went on a fishing expedition to see what they could reel in. That's why they lacked the legal sufficiency to penetrate the executive privilege firewall, because they couldn't go before a judge and say, "This is the crime we're investigating, and this is why this witness is relevant."
                            Not so. The House has consistently said that it was investing the whistle-blower report that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine via extortion into providing damaging information about 2020 presidential primary candidate Joe Biden. A report that was corroborated by numerous witnesses during the House investigation.

                            As for a "fishing expedition", you mean like how the Clinton impeachment started off with the alleged Whitewater scandal, which came to nothing, and ended up with a tacky sex scandal which by comparison with Trump's sordid sexual history, makes Clinton's efforts look positively virginal?
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • New Trump lawyers:
                              Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, and Dershowitz, the Harvard Law emeritus professor who advised the defense team in football star O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, were announced as the newest members of Trump’s defense. The group will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi and former independent counsel Robert Ray, according to Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, who will lead the defense with the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

                              The four new lawyers were selected personally by Trump for their political-legal celebrity and vocal defenses of the president in the media — and despite the significant professional baggage that several of them bring to the impeachment saga.
                              WaPo
                              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                              “not all there” - you know who you are

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                New Trump lawyers:

                                WaPo
                                Yes, a definite blow to Fox News, since they'll be losing several of their major expert contributors for the duration of the trial. And in the event that the Senate decides to allow witnesses, that could be several months by the time the Court evaluates and rules on all the Executive Privilege claims.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                382 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X