The Impeachment Thread

#30,526
#30,526
1972 Grad said:
From my understanding, since we have 3 branches of government and separation of powers, the Judicial branch is supposed to mediate standoffs between the Executive and Legislative branch. The Executive branch does not have to take orders from the Legislative branch. The Legislative branch chose to hurry the process up so they could get it done before the Christmas break, rather than to lose momentum by letting it make its way through the courts.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're right or close to it. It sounds like that's how the framers would want it handled.

Im still gonna research if possible.
 
#30,527
#30,527
volinbham said:
Of course the Dems weren't going to allow witnesses that challenged their narrative. If it's all fair and above board what harm could it do to allow some from the list?

I surprised you are defending the process as if it were completely fair and above board.
Click to expand...
You are? Hell..... he’s been TDS afflicted for several years
 
#30,528
#30,528
volinbham said:
Yes the remedy is the Courts. It always is these situations. It was under Obama and it is now. That's how the system works.

Subpoena's being honored is not yes no. The subpoenas were responded to - the Dems didn't like the answer. Take it to the Courts.
Click to expand...

That is why I said rushed. The courts would take too much time and we would be further close to the election. This is all about giving him the Scarlett "I".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#30,529
#30,529
McDad said:
Understood. But fair, open, and objective may not be constitutional considerations. Seems silly to us to say that today because fair is considered noble.

If not outlined, then the ruling party makes the rules.
Click to expand...

I agree they make the rules. The impeachment is Constitutional.

Likewise, if the Senate votes to dismiss that too will be Constitutional. In both cases the people should be rightly skeptical
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#30,530
#30,530
volinbham said:
Of course the Dems weren't going to allow witnesses that challenged their narrative. If it's all fair and above board what harm could it do to allow some from the list?

I surprised you are defending the process as if it were completely fair and above board.
Click to expand...
You're a joke.
 
#30,534
#30,534
luthervol said:
It very well may be a benefit to liberty; the stall and obstruct strategy may be changed.
Click to expand...
Rushing a trial and running roughshod over the Constitution is a benefit to liberty??? Surely you can see the folly of that if it were you on trial.
 
#30,536
#30,536
Hunerwadel said:
The way I understand it according to what Pelosi said after the vote is the trial cannot begin until the speaker delivers the Articles to the Senate. They may not be delivered until the calling of witnesses and handing over of documents settled. It's going to look bad if Trump and the GOP Senators appear to hiding evidence and protecting the President from testimony and it drags on for months. She may have put the ball in their court.
Click to expand...


LOL

When my side games the process I'm all for it; when they do it - it's gonna look bad. All that matters is winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, NorthDallas40 and McDad
#30,539
#30,539
Carl Pickens said:
I find it funny that the liberals, Democrats and other various dips**ts think this impeachment actually means something.
Other than them, nobody even cares.....it’s another fabricated witch hunt.
Click to expand...
image
 
#30,541
#30,541
volfanjustin said:
Delayed not withheld
Click to expand...
They mean the same thing. I'm not having this argument again. The facts are: (1) The Trump Admistration placed a freeze on Congressionally authorized military aid to the Ukraine in the middle of July. (2) The whistleblower's complaint was filed on August 12th. (3) President Zelensky was scheduled to appear on CNN for an interview with Fareed Zakaria on September 5th to, presumably, announce an investigation into the Bidens. (4) This was canceled once the House Oversight Committee became aware of the whistleblower's complaint on September 3rd and demanded that it be forwarded to them. (5) At first, the White House refused to forward the whistleblower's complaint to Congress as required by law. After Mitch McConnell declined to come to their defense over their refusal to forward the complaint to Congress, (6) the White House then lifted the freeze on military aid on September 9th and (7) then forwarded the whistleblower complaint to the House Oversight Committee on September 16th.

The chronology is very clear on this matter: The Trump Administration did not release the hold on the military aid to the Ukraine until AFTER they became aware of the content of the whistleblower complaint and therefore, had no choice but to do so. They knew what was coming.... and every indication we have, is that President Zelensky would have complied with Trump's demand of announcing an investigation into the Bidens on CNN on September 5th - but the whistleblower complaint changed everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNectar and luthervol
#30,543
#30,543
Bigun said:
What evidence was that? Typical trash Dems acting just like stupid GOP in the 90s with Clinton.

Although at least with Clinton there was a crime committed whereas here the Dems impeached him because he was elected without their permission.
Click to expand...
That Trump withheld aid in exchange for Ukraine making a public statement that they were investigating Biden for the sole purpose of benefiting Trump.

I thought every one knew that by now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top