The Impeachment Thread

#36,126
#36,126
0nelilreb said:
This is not a grand jury and not a trial of law .
Click to expand...

Ok, so then what's your basis for believing that there can be no new evidence in a Senate impeachment trial? No prior impeachmant blocked testimony or other new evidence from coming in.
 
#36,130
#36,130
@luthervol You know Hillary's use of a person email server called for legitimate oversight to highlight national security concerns and make changes to correct the inherent problems. To go on and on and make a public spectacle without any change shows the real rational, to smear Hillary. Now that Whatsapp is popular among the GOP to conduct official business, not archiving official communications doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evillawyer and luthervol
#36,131
#36,131
luthervol said:
Because they thought sending it to the Senate would expedite the court proceedings.
Click to expand...
The way I see it at this point, if it looks like the Republicans kept new and explosive evidence from being presented, it will work against them down the road. The Senate can stop Bolton from testifying, but they can't stop Bolton's book from being published and by early accounts, it's going to corroborate what Fiona Hill said, and even add material to it. This obstruction will work against them. You just have to be patient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#36,132
#36,132
BowlBrother85 said:
The way I see it at this point, if it looks like the Republicans kept new and explosive evidence from being presented, it will work against them down the road. The Senate can stop Bolton from testifying, but they can't stop Bolton's book from being published and early accounts, it's going to corroborate what Fiona Hill said, and even add material to it. This obstruction will work against them. You just have to be patient.
Click to expand...

It's going to hurt them so bad that they will increase their majority in the Senate, take back the house and keep the presidency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NurseGoodVol, VolnJC and 2 others
#36,134
#36,134
0nelilreb said:
Did you know that your party didn’t hold the majority vote when the articles was sent over ?
Click to expand...
Did you know the Republicans didn't hold the majority in the House when they voted to impeach? Why do you ask stupid question? Do you really have that great of a need to talk to someone?
 
#36,135
#36,135
Any discussion about what the House did or didn't do relating to impeachment is completely moot at this point. Such defense is 100% smokescreen.

The Senate is in charge.

It can accept House evidence or reject it outright. It can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Whether you think Trump was ramrodded in the House makes absolutely ZERO difference right now.

If the Senate wants to hold a real trial and determine material facts, it can.

But, of course, it lacks the political will. Why? GOP Senators know the truth. They recognize what Trump did is wrong. But, for the good of their party, they're gonna look the other way.

Net result: Trump has a free pass. AND... so do future Democratic Presidents.

This is what YOU wanted, Trumpsters. Our President acted corruptly, and you defended it. Remember that down the line.

giphy (22).gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and luthervol
#36,136
#36,136
BowlBrother85 said:
The way I see it at this point, if it looks like the Republicans kept new and explosive evidence from being presented, it will work against them down the road. The Senate can stop Bolton from testifying, but they can't stop Bolton's book from being published and by early accounts, it's going to corroborate what Fiona Hill said, and even add material to it. This obstruction will work against them. You just have to be patient.
Click to expand...
Sure is a lot of assumption that Bolton would turn. If you know this then the trump legal team knows this and they would at least get some witnesses on the stand as well.
One thing in all this is it has not been proven or even an actuality that Trump did anything wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#36,137
#36,137
evillawyer said:
Ok, so then what's your basis for believing that there can be no new evidence in a Senate impeachment trial? No prior impeachmant blocked testimony or other new evidence from coming in.
Click to expand...

I didn’t ever say there couldn’t be . Come on you guys aren’t this dumb ( not all the time ) you are trying to argue for something that can be allowed or disallowed depending on who holds the majority vote . Again this is not a trial by law with set rules that you can take a position and argue from . It’s a political court held by ( cough cough ) Jurors that are in no way neutral or care to be .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#36,138
#36,138
MontyPython said:
Any discussion about what the House did or didn't do relating to impeachment is completely moot at this point. Such defense is 100% smokescreen.

The Senate is in charge.

It can accept House evidence or reject it outright. It can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Whether you think Trump was ramrodded in the House makes absolutely ZERO difference right now.

If the Senate wants to hold a real trial and determine material facts, it can.

But, of course, it lacks the political will. Why? GOP Senators know the truth. They recognize what Trump did is wrong. But, for the good of their party, they're gonna look the other way.

Net result: Trump has a free pass. AND... so do future Democratic Presidents.

This is what YOU wanted. Our President acted corruptly, and you defended it. Remember that down the line.

View attachment 255992
Click to expand...

Lol right right .. do as I say , not as we did .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NurseGoodVol, MWR and 2 others
#36,139
#36,139
Mick said:
Did you know the Republicans didn't hold the majority in the House when they voted to impeach? Why do you ask stupid question? Do you really have that great of a need to talk to someone?
Click to expand...

Yes as a matter of fact I did and accepted the fact that your party impeached just because they could by holding the majority vote ... now can you guess what is about to happen in the Senate ? I know you can .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, MWR and SpaceCoastVol
#36,140
#36,140
Orangeburst said:
Sure is a lot of assumption that Bolton would turn. If you know this then the trump league team knows this and they would at least get some witnesses on the stand as well.
One thing in all this is it has not been proven or even an actuality that Trump did anything wrong.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with that. The evidence shows that Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine as leverage against President Zelensky's willingness to go on CNN and announce an investigation into the Bidens - and essentially perform a campaign favor for Donald Trump.
 
#36,141
#36,141
hog88 said:
Again, Roberts has zero say in whether witnesses are subpoenaed/called or documents are subpoenaed. Say it with me this time, Roberts has NO SAY and Nancy knows this.

Nancy new how Mitch was going to run this trial, he said it would be modeled after the Clinton trial where no witnesses or additional evidence was introduced.
Click to expand...
Say it with me. Roberts would have an impact on how quickly the issues made it through the court system.
There were no requests for the submission of additional pertinent evidence and testimony refused during the Clinton trial.

Why did Nancy withhold sending the articles of impeachment?
 
#36,142
#36,142
Orangeburst said:
For one you are making an unrealistic assumption that other spending would increase. You really think the Dems would cut SS to provide more funding for defense? You are not being honest with yourself if you think we can get it under control without some entitlement restructuring.
Point is it is a third rail that Trump is touching and benefits him in no way. You should at least applaud the effort.
Click to expand...
well spending has already increased so there is no assumption being made. It's established fact. Dems aren't cutting SS so I'm not sure who is now making unrealistic assumptions. Repubs are however

Small changes look good and can be applauded but unless there is an overall decrease it's pretty meaningless. That is unlikely to happen from a guy who admitted he doesn't care about a budget.
 
#36,145
#36,145
MontyPython said:
Any discussion about what the House did or didn't do relating to impeachment is completely moot at this point. Such defense is 100% smokescreen.

The Senate is in charge.

It can accept House evidence or reject it outright. It can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Whether you think Trump was ramrodded in the House makes absolutely ZERO difference right now.

If the Senate wants to hold a real trial and determine material facts, it can.

But, of course, it lacks the political will. Why? GOP Senators know the truth. They recognize what Trump did is wrong. But, for the good of their party, they're gonna look the other way.

Net result: Trump has a free pass. AND... so do future Democratic Presidents.

This is what YOU wanted. Our President acted corruptly, and you defended it. Remember that down the line.

View attachment 255992
Click to expand...

Same could be said about the house. If they wanted hold real impeachment hearings and determine facts they could have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs, SpaceCoastVol and 2 others
#36,146
#36,146
luthervol said:
How many times do you guys ask the same damn questions?
They could either let it drag through the courts for months if not years, or they could try to expedite by sending it to the Senate.
They were trying to avoid an ongoing impeachment during the middle of an election. Pretty admirable really. Had they let it drag out, Trump and the red hatters would have eviscerated them over intentionally attempting to impact the election.
Click to expand...
Balderdash.

Impeachment is a very serious and somber matter. The investigation/inquiry into it should be as meticulous and thorough as possible and should include the President's party in the process by allowing them to call their witnessess, obtain their documentation and any other matters that could exculpate the President. That way, what you send over from the House might actually have votes in the affirmative from the opposing party. Did that happen in this case? Was the investigation complete, meticulous and provided equal opportunity for the opposition? The answer to that should be abundantly clear, even to you.

They are intentionally trying to influence the election. They knew they had nothing left but the ability to put on a political carnival sideshow. They knew the Republican controlled Senate would not remove the President. They sent it over anyway, didn't want to take the time to do a complete investigation, go through the required steps to get documents/witnesses, all because it would happen after the election. What's so wrong about doing that?

They can't take the chance that Trump will win reelection so they are pulling out their nuclear option of a BS "Trumped" up impeachment. There was nothing noble about them wanting to not impact the election. That's what this is really all about. You are so full of. . .denial, that it isn't even funny.

You can't possibly be that dumb naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and dezul
#36,147
#36,147
37L1 said:
Balderdash.

Impeachment is a very serious and somber matter. The investigation/inquiry into it should be as meticulous and thorough as possible and should include the President's party in the process by allowing them to call their witnessess, obtain their documentation and any other matters that could exculpate the President. That way, what you send over from the House might actually have votes in the affirmative from the opposing party. Did that happen in this case? Was the investigation complete, meticulous and provided equal opportunity for the opposition? The answer to that should be abundantly clear, even to you.

They are intentionally trying to influence the election. They knew they had nothing left but the ability to put on a political carnival sideshow. They knew the Republican controlled Senate would not remove the President. They sent it over anyway, didn't want to take the time to do a complete investigation, go through the required steps to get documents/witnesses, all because it would happen after the election. What's so wrong about doing that?

They can't take the chance that Trump will win reelection so they are pulling out their nuclear option of a BS "Trumped" up impeachment. There was nothing noble about them wanting to not impact the election. That's what this is really all about. You are so full of. . .denial, that it isn't even funny.

You can't possibly be that dumb naive.
Click to expand...
Only one side is attempting to bury the truth.
 
#36,148
#36,148
hog88 said:
Same could be said about the house. If they wanted hold real impeachment hearings and determine facts they could have.
Click to expand...

The House lacks ability to CONVICT. Ergo, really, they have no real power. So, who cares what they did or didn't do?

The Senate does have power. And the power to hold a real trial.
 
#36,149
#36,149
luthervol said:
Say it with me. Roberts would have an impact on how quickly the issues made it through the court system.
There were no requests for the submission of additional pertinent evidence and testimony refused during the Clinton trial.

Why did Nancy withhold sending the articles of impeachment?
Click to expand...
Debates that the three impartial democrats were holding?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top