The Impeachment Thread

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
11,514
Likes
10,375
That's why they put it under the umbrella of "abuse of power", which is what I said in the beginning. They knew what they were doing. Everyone acknowledges that bribery is an abuse of power, abuse of power is just terminology that is more palatable.
Do you know why congress is jittery about bribery ... payoffs in the form of favored actions for money or other inducements? Do you understand that Joe was in a position to press for aid to Ukraine when his kid was making millions from a Ukrainian company doing business in a field the kid knew nothing about in an environment the kid knew nothing about? You don't consider that a direct conflict of interest or abuse of power? A relationship like that would have forced revocation of a security clearance for anyone not politically connected and protected.

Obama's "more flexibility after the election" could be considered direct inducement to Putin to not rock the boat or even directly support the reelection in return for support after the election. That never troubled you?
 

Orange defense

Blood runneth orange in my veins
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
6,670
Likes
7,096
January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton's defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.

Following the 1998 impeachment trial.
 

SpaceCoastVol

Can't spell comrade without Democrat
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
29,832
Likes
25,857
Do you know why congress is jittery about bribery ... payoffs in the form of favored actions for money or other inducements? Do you understand that Joe was in a position to press for aid to Ukraine when his kid was making millions from a Ukrainian company doing business in a field the kid knew nothing about in an environment the kid knew nothing about? You don't consider that a direct conflict of interest or abuse of power? A relationship like that would have forced revocation of a security clearance for anyone not politically connected and protected.

Obama's "more flexibility after the election" could be considered direct inducement to Putin to not rock the boat or even directly support the reelection in return for support after the election. That never troubled you?
OF course not. luther was cool with his boy's shenanigans
 

Orange_Vol1321

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
24,243
Likes
34,228
You are a disingenuous attorney if that’s your position , and not a very good one if that would be your advise to Trump .
It's all about them being guilty is why this is going on. Just like D'Souza says, just think if they had President Trump saying this. Lol



 

luthervol

rational (x) and reasonable (y)
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
25,013
Likes
12,544
You are correct, but, I do believe it did happen as well in House investigation. But, more so was Starr I believe.
The house investigating Clinton not only did not have to deal with those delays, they were provided all of the testimonies and documentation from the Starr investigation. They basically had all of the evidence handed to them. The house investigating Trump had the exact opposite experience. It would have taken years to fight every attempt by Trump to block witnesses and the release of documentation. Had the dems. taken that route, the impeachment investigation would have still been ongoing during the entire 2020 election. The decision was made that that would not be good for anybody, especially the country.
 

37L1

Good Dog!
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
9,693
Likes
13,670
The house investigating Clinton not only did not have to deal with those delays, they were provided all of the testimonies and documentation from the Starr investigation. They basically had all of the evidence handed to them. The house investigating Trump had the exact opposite experience. It would have taken years to fight every attempt by Trump to block witnesses and the release of documentation. Had the dems. taken that route, the impeachment investigation would have still been ongoing during the entire 2020 election. The decision was made that that would not be good for anybody, especially the country.
BS. The decision was made to precisely influence the 2020 election even though they knew the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

It's all politics.
 

0nelilreb

Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
17,200
Likes
22,058
It's all about them being guilty is why this is going on. Just like D'Souza says, just think if they had President Trump saying this. Lol



If that were either Pence or Trump saying that , it would be on a continuous loop on CNN . While Morning Joe and Rachel only brought it up twice a day during their shows on MSNBC .
 

luthervol

rational (x) and reasonable (y)
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
25,013
Likes
12,544
Do you know why congress is jittery about bribery ... payoffs in the form of favored actions for money or other inducements? Do you understand that Joe was in a position to press for aid to Ukraine when his kid was making millions from a Ukrainian company doing business in a field the kid knew nothing about in an environment the kid knew nothing about? You don't consider that a direct conflict of interest or abuse of power? A relationship like that would have forced revocation of a security clearance for anyone not politically connected and protected.

Obama's "more flexibility after the election" could be considered direct inducement to Putin to not rock the boat or even directly support the reelection in return for support after the election. That never troubled you?
Sure it's a dangerous grey area for any person with decision making power: policemen, judges, coaches, CEOs, human resource managers, bosses, teachers, college admissions, the list is endless.

Influence is a valuable commodity.

Trump obviously crossed the line and is well outside of any grey area. His actions were obviously attempted bribery.
 

0nelilreb

Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
17,200
Likes
22,058
'Take her out': New recording appears to feature an angry Trump telling associates to 'get rid of' the US's ambassador to Ukraine for bad-mouthing him

So will ABC give Schiff the recording of Trump saying to "Take her out" on the evening break or will we hear about all this while the Republicans vote that we don't need witnesses?
Are we impeaching him for firing underlings now ? If that’s the case then Schiff will have a ton of new / old to enter into evidence .
 

hog88

#pruittnutthugger
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
64,838
Likes
51,415

JCP201

VFL GIRL, Aight?!!
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
10,634
Likes
19,707
POTUS can fire an ambassador for any reason, any time so the recording is pointless.
Yes, but they don't have the right to stalk her and make her feel threatened according to Lev's notes and the Ambassador. And why was she "going to go through some things?" according to Trump? (Edit: and he said he didn't know Lev, right?)
 

VN Store




Sponsors
 

Top