The Impeachment Thread

#33,951
#33,951
BowlBrother85 said:
In any criminal trial conducted in the United States (and yes, I realize that's not what this is), the only fact witness that the defense is allowed to keep from testifying is the defendant (by pleading the 5th). The complaints about "fairness" ring hollow. It's whining.
Click to expand...

In other words you are fine with political assassination as long as the assassins are on your side and fairness and fact have nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#33,952
#33,952
vols40 said:
Then why did your grandmother Nancy not charge the president and such? No abuse of power and obstruction of Congress? She may as well just charged him as being Septic.
Click to expand...

Dunno, why don't you ask her.
 
#33,954
#33,954
Watching this impeachment opening intently right now. I can report that Senators are old and unattractive.

Chief Justice Roberts looks suspiciously geeked for this. Like an A/V nerd who has had to wait until senior year to thread the projector.

Also, John Tester is fat.

Rifleman reporting for Volnation News. Will report more as details come in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR, Rickyvol77, CagleMtnVol and 9 others
#33,955
#33,955
VolnJC said:
Meanwhile while the Dems are handing out impeachment memorabilia...the adults are passing trade deals
Click to expand...



You realize that it is possible to BOTH do trade deals AND to not extort personal political favors from foreign heads of state using US taxpayer dollars as bait, right?
 
#33,957
#33,957
Velo Vol said:
You hate to see it.

EObOVZiXUAQRFnZ
Click to expand...
His deep state compromised azz will have no impact on the trial.
 
#33,958
#33,958
AM64 said:
In other words you are fine with political assassination as long as the assassins are on your side and fairness and fact have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Fairness and the facts have everything to do with it. The White House has sought to block witnesses from testifying who could have vindicated Trump (if he has indeed done nothing wrong). House Republicans were present for every witness testimony that was given and they were given a chance to cross examine every witness including those that took place in the Capitol's SCIF (or what Republicans have referred to as 'the basement'). Republicans were going to whine about something, regardless of what the process was because the facts are not favorable for their side.
 
#33,960
#33,960
Rifleman said:
Watching this impeachment opening intently right now. I can report that Senators are old and unattractive.

Chief Justice Roberts looks suspiciously geeked for this. Like an A/V nerd who has had to wait until senior year to thread the projector.

Also, John Tester is fat.

Rifleman reporting for Volnation News. Will report more as details come in.
Click to expand...
You can go ahead and report the Senate did not convict, on with the next sham investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, W.TN.Orange Blood, AM64 and 2 others
#33,961
#33,961
Rifleman said:
Watching this impeachment opening intently right now. I can report that Senators are old and unattractive.

Chief Justice Roberts looks suspiciously geeked for this. Like an A/V nerd who has had to wait until senior year to thread the projector.

Also, John Tester is fat.

Rifleman reporting for Volnation News. Will report more as details come in.
Click to expand...
 
#33,964
#33,964
BowlBrother85 said:
Fairness and the facts have everything to do with it. The White House has sought to block witnesses from testifying who could have vindicated Trump (if he has indeed done nothing wrong). House Republicans were present for every witness testimony that was given and they were given a chance to cross examine every witness including those that took place in the Capitol's SCIF (or what Republicans have referred to as 'the basement'). Republicans were going to whine about something, regardless of what the process was because the facts are not favorable for their side.
Click to expand...

The Republicans did exactly what is generally done in legal settings ... stall and make it painful for the other side. Dims just didn't bother to complete the legal circuit because they were in a hurry while they still had the numbers on their side. The part that you didn't cover is that only one side was allowed to call witnesses, and that the house dims then want freedom to call anybody they want in the senate trial. If that's your definition of fair and balanced, then I guess it meets the bar for fact and fairness. To the rest of us it simply demonstrates much of what's wrong in politics.

Executive privilege is nothing new; do away with that, and the president should have the ability to subpoena any member of congress to an executive inquisition and the ability to remove him or her from office. What's good for the goose ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and W.TN.Orange Blood
#33,965
#33,965
0nelilreb said:
That’s way to complex and you are way overthinking it , the solution is now and has always been basic and simple when it comes to politics ... put up better candidates for people to vote for . Hint : not ones you think are better than Trump . What happened in 2016 is history , what’s the old saying about learning for our past ? It really is that simple .
Click to expand...
I'm hoping the nation has learned. I thought we would be much further along the learning curve by now, but it is what it is.
The repubs have already decided not to put a better candidate and allowed Trump to bully them into running unopposed. The dems will certainly put up a better candidate, but will enough of the public be far enough along curve is the question.
 
#33,967
#33,967
luthervol said:
I'm hoping the nation has learned. I thought we would be much further along the learning curve by now, but it is what it is.
The repubs have already decided not to put a better candidate and allowed Trump to bully them into running unopposed. The dems will certainly put up a better candidate, but will enough of the public be far enough along curve is the question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ace, Trump didn't get elected because he was Trump. Trump got elected because Hiliary was Hiliary. If you think the dims will put up a better candidate this time from their crop of losers, you are completely lost and off the continuum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, W.TN.Orange Blood and Orangeburst
#33,973
#33,973
AM64 said:
Sorry, Ace, Trump didn't get elected because he was Trump. Trump got elected because Hiliary was Hiliary. If you think the dims will put up a better candidate this time from their crop of losers, you are completely lost and off the continuum.
Click to expand...
Hillary had nothing to do with the primaries Ace.
 
#33,974
#33,974
AM64 said:
The Republicans did exactly what is generally done in legal settings ... stall and make it painful for the other side. Dims just didn't bother to complete the legal circuit because they were in a hurry while they still had the numbers on their side. The part that you didn't cover is that only one side was allowed to call witnesses, and that the house dims then want freedom to call anybody they want in the senate trial. If that's your definition of fair and balanced, then I guess it meets the bar for fact and fairness. To the rest of us it simply demonstrates much of what's wrong in politics.

Executive privilege is nothing new; do away with that, and the president should have the ability to subpoena any member of congress to an executive inquisition and the ability to remove him or her from office. What's good for the goose ...
Click to expand...
The Democrats didn't want the impeachment proceedings to bleed into the general election campaign and so they moved forward without trying to compel witness testimony through the federal court system. It is a political process, with political considerations being made. It's true that Democrats would not allow Republicans to call witnesses such as Alexandra Chalupa, Adam Schiff and the Bidens, but those witnesses were not germane to the core issue of whether or not Donald Trump withheld military aid to the Ukraine in exchange for a campaign favor. The Republicans were trying to deflect and shift the focus away from Trump. The Democrats didn't allow it. I suppose it's reasonable to call that "unfair" because in an actual trial, the defense is allowed to deflect and shift the focus away from the defendant. It's what a good defense team tries to do. The Democrats were in a position to keep that from happening, and so they did.

Is this executive privilege we are talking about, or entitlement? The White House's refusal to comply with the essential function of oversight will set a bad precedent for future administrations to follow... and could come back to bite Republicans one day. Eventually, there will be a President from the Democratic Party again, with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Good luck ever getting a subpoena complied with when that day comes.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top