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

  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.
    Yes, they have admitted that their case is not sufficient enough for republican Senators, most of them just simply aren't going to convict no matter what, and the few who could possibley vote to convict are weighing which decision would be in their best political interests.
    But you're desparately afraid of relative witnesses and documentary evidence being heard and seen, aren't you, MM? It's all going to come out eventually anyway, wouldn't you rather see it now, than possibly learn later what a fool you've been. Or is it that you already know he's guilty, are complicit in his defense, and just don't care what you look like when the proverbial smoking guns are unleashed from their obstructed places. Is it just a win that you want, or the truth? If you don't want all the relevant evidence to be admissable, then it's not the truth that you're seeking.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The difference, of course, is that in this current matter, unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House never established a legally sufficient reason to bypass executive privilege. They can't even name the specific crime they're investigating. They just have a vague impression that Trump did something, and they want a license to keep digging until they can find something to pin on him. Anybody who values due process should be very concerned about what's happening, because if they can do it to the President of the United States, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?
    For the umpteenth time, itís bribery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

    --Sam
    The difference, of course, is that in this current matter, unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House never established a legally sufficient reason to bypass executive privilege. They can't even name the specific crime they're investigating. They just have a vague impression that Trump did something, and they want a license to keep digging until they can find something to pin on him. Anybody who values due process should be very concerned about what's happening, because if they can do it to the President of the United States, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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.
    Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    ...you're pretending the proofs don't exist...
    Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    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. Simpsonís murder trial, were announced as the newest members of Trumpís defense. The group will also include former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi and former independent counsel Robert Ray, according to Jay Sekulow, one of Trumpís 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 ó and despite the significant professional baggage that several of them bring to the impeachment saga.
    WaPo

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Nunes was in on the ďdrug dealĒ.

    House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trumpís 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. Giulianiís emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunesís office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president ó and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering.
    WaPo

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
    We know the story. The Senate Repubs are pretending that the proofs donít 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."

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    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 donít 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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 itís 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!"

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    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 itís 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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:13 AM
5 responses
28 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 10:50 PM
0 responses
90 views
1 like
Last Post LiconaFan97  
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:47 AM
5 responses
55 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by LiconaFan97, 12-01-2020, 11:56 PM
36 responses
301 views
1 like
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Started by mikewhitney, 12-01-2020, 08:39 PM
2 responses
27 views
0 likes
Last Post mikewhitney  
Working...
X