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

  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Men View Post
    You guys have been saying that since before Trump was even inaugurated, and those iceberg tips keep melting away to nothing faster than you can say, "Iceberg! Right ahead!"
    Would you agree that if we end up getting witnesses and documents in the trial that there is something there? At least 4 республиканец senators would have to be persuaded for that to occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by diryfloor View Post
    That is just the tip of the iceberg...
    You guys have been saying that since before Trump was even inaugurated, and those iceberg tips keep melting away to nothing faster than you can say, "Iceberg! Right ahead!"

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That's not direct evidence of a crime, that's a non-binding opinion of one committee of Congress. And incidentally, that same committee had found that the Obama administration had broken the law at least 7 different times.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...d-federal-law/

    In fact, it's quite typical for the GAO to form the opinion that a president has violated one law or another, but unless it's brought before a judge who upholds the opinion, it really doesn't mean anything.

    Sam started a thread about it here:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nt-Control-Act
    That is just the tip of the iceberg, as we know. That sort of thing is followed by investigations or cover-ups. Trump is a cover-upper. The Senate are his co-conspirators. Eventually they will be undone by the truth, and God will march them off to Hell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    gv011720dAPR20200116084527.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
    Does this count? WaPo
    That's not direct evidence of a crime, that's a non-binding opinion of one committee of Congress. And incidentally, that same committee had found that the Obama administration had broken the law at least 7 different times.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...d-federal-law/

    In fact, it's quite typical for the GAO to form the opinion that a president has violated one law or another, but unless it's brought before a judge who upholds the opinion, it really doesn't mean anything.

    Sam started a thread about it here:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nt-Control-Act

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I will accept direct evidence that he broke the law and not biased guesswork that paints targets around arrows and calls them bullseyes.
    Does this count?
    A cornerstone of President Trump’s impeachment defense is the argument that his administration delayed the release of congressionally appropriated military assistance to Ukraine due to his concerns about corruption in that country. Another is that the articles of impeachment currently being considered by the Senate don’t deal with illegal conduct.

    
But a decision released Thursday by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), a federal agency that oversees the use of taxpayer funds, undercuts both of these specious defenses: It explains in detail why the hold was unlawful, and it further illustrates that the White House knew — or should have known — that the hold was illegal, but went ahead and did it anyway.
    WaPo

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    So we're back to this again. Other than Trump confessing "Yes I did criming" you won't accept anything.
    I will accept direct evidence that he broke the law and not biased guesswork that paints targets around arrows and calls them bullseyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    We can hope enough of them still have a conscience. But the lack of conscience seen here daily makes it hard to hold onto that hope.
    I feel the same way. It's hard to believe that they actually believe their own arguments even. I'm not sure I do believe them, in their sincerity that is, and if that's true, that would be the worst possible scenario.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    There may be a few who do, but that could be for political reasons. Problem is that the leadership, Moscow Mitch, is dishonoring his oath of impartiality right from the get go by rigging the trial set-up to favor the defense. Unfortunately it's going to take a few principled republicans to actually honor their oaths to up-end the intended set-up. Not sure if we'll get that or not.
    We can hope enough of them still have a conscience. But the lack of conscience seen here daily makes it hard to hold onto that hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The inference is that Trump was interested in Joe Biden's corruption purely as a personal matter.
    So we're back to this again. Other than Trump confessing "Yes I did criming" you won't accept anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I have no confidence any of them will honor their oaths in this regard.
    There may be a few who do, but that could be for political reasons. Problem is that the leadership, Moscow Mitch, is dishonoring his oath of impartiality right from the get go by rigging the trial set-up to favor the defense. Unfortunately it's going to take a few principled republicans to actually honor their oaths to up-end the intended set-up. Not sure if we'll get that or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    The reputation of the SCOTUS is in his hands;

    “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Grassley asked.
“I do,” Roberts said.
    So? That doesn't grant him any special powers to "do" anything. He will mainly serve as referee, and will be constrained by whatever rules the Senate puts in place. The Senate will determine which witnesses, if any, will be called. As a member of SCOTUS, somewhat separate from his role presiding over the trial, he may be involved in evaluating claims of Executive Privilege.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    It's not an inference. Giuliani's letter clearly states that he is acting as a representative for Trump "as a private citizen, not as President of the United States." In his "capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent", Giuliani requests the meeting with Zelensky.

    You don't have to infer what is explicitly stated.

    --Sam
    The inference is that Trump was interested in Joe Biden's corruption purely as a personal matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
    Could you provide more information on the Ukrainians concerns over Biden? I’m genuinely interested.

    On an unrelated note, it’s amazing how many people in government are seemingly still so loyal to Obama. He sounds like a great guy.
    This article is worth reading:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...-ukraine-story

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You could infer it, I suppose, but there are many other reasons a president chooses to use unofficial channels. For instance, Ukraine had tried to contact the US concerning Joe Biden on several occasions, but they were repeatedly stonewalled in the official channels by Obama holdovers. It wasn't until Guilani got involved that they started making forward progress.
    It's not an inference. Giuliani's letter clearly states that he is acting as a representative for Trump "as a private citizen, not as President of the United States." In his "capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent", Giuliani requests the meeting with Zelensky.

    You don't have to infer what is explicitly stated.

    --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
231 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
176 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
291 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X