The Impeachment Thread

#30,501
#30,501
volinbham said:
As I understand it the rules are pretty vague so I doubt there's a Constitutional violation claim on the part of R's. That said, it does call into question the narrative of "fair" "open" "objective" process for the impeachment inquiry. Basically, one side called only the people they felt support the narrative and the other side wasn't given an opportunity to provide witnesses that question the narrative.

Impeachment was pre-ordained or it wouldn't have been pursued. The process was set to achieve an outcome. Not unConstitutional but not compelling.

To me the most telling sign is how the Senate wants more witnesses to "prove" the case that the House claims has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Maybe the senate can compel some of Trump's guys to testify. Fingers crossed.
 
#30,505
#30,505
luthervol said:
He would lose in court and he knows it. He is just playing the delay game. Let the senate expedite the process.
Click to expand...
You can't predict with any degree of certainty. To claim you can is hubris. If predictions were a replacement, then there is no need for the court remedy. The Constitution is more important than politics.
 
#30,506
#30,506
luthervol said:
What's the constitutional remedy. The courts? Isn't there one case already 8 months old that hasn't even made it to the circuit court yet? Why delay it through the courts when they have already decided in previous cases that the subpoenas must be honored? Send it to the Senate where they can expedite the trial.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, McDad and tbwhhs
#30,507
#30,507
McDad said:
If Trump is exercising his constitutional rights by avoiding, and there is a constitutional remedy to compel his testimony, rushing and circumventing the process is no benefit to liberty.
Click to expand...
It very well may be a benefit to liberty; the stall and obstruct strategy may be changed.
 
#30,509
#30,509
CagleMtnVol said:


He's right they don't just hate Trump. They hate all 60 million of us Americans who voted for him. Remember to them were just deplorables who cling to our guns & religion.

Were just racist smelly Walmart people to them that live in parts of the country they don't give damn about.
Click to expand...


I do not believe that about you. Trump has shown me that Republicans no longer cling to religion.
 
#30,510
#30,510
CagleMtnVol said:


He's right they don't just hate Trump. They hate all 60 million of us Americans who voted for him. Remember to them were just deplorables who cling to our guns & religion.

Were just racist smelly Walmart people to them that live in parts of the country they don't give damn about.
Click to expand...

They just turned 63M in to probably 75+M.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, CagleMtnVol and volfanjustin
#30,511
#30,511
McDad said:
You can't predict with any degree of certainty. To claim you can is hubris. If predictions were a replacement, then there is no need for the court remedy. The Constitution is more important than politics.
Click to expand...
They didn't go against the constitution. They just impeached him on the evidence that was available. Nothing wrong with that.
 
#30,512
#30,512
luthervol said:
Don't overlook the fact that Trump kept everyone with direct knowledge from testifying. It's critical.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and luthervol
#30,514
#30,514
CagleMtnVol said:


He's right they don't just hate Trump. They hate all 60 million of us Americans who voted for him. Remember to them were just deplorables who cling to our guns & religion.

Were just racist smelly Walmart people to them that live in parts of the country they don't give damn about.
Click to expand...


So all the demoncrats promise not to shop at Wall*Mart??

820.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, CagleMtnVol and Orange_Vol1321
#30,516
#30,516
volinbham said:
As I understand it the rules are pretty vague so I doubt there's a Constitutional violation claim on the part of R's. That said, it does call into question the narrative of "fair" "open" "objective" process for the impeachment inquiry. Basically, one side called only the people they felt support the narrative and the other side wasn't given an opportunity to provide witnesses that question the narrative.

Impeachment was pre-ordained or it wouldn't have been pursued. The process was set to achieve an outcome. Not unConstitutional but not compelling.

To me the most telling sign is how the Senate wants more witnesses to "prove" the case that the House claims has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#30,517
#30,517
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...
Or don't take it to the courts and just move forward without that testimony. Nothing unconstitutional about that strategy.
 
#30,518
#30,518
McDad said:
If the Constitution outlines that discretion to them bc they are majority party, then that's the way it is.
Click to expand...
And if that's the way it is then they can choose not to show up. You can't have it both ways.

Now watch who doesn't show up in the Senate if they allow it to go to trial.
 
#30,520
#30,520
BowlBrother85 said:
No, he isn't. The center of this whole thing is the central question of whether or not Donald Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to the Ukraine, in order to use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a political campaign favor for him. Hunter Biden would have no knowledge of that. Any attempts to call Hunter Biden as a witness represent transparent efforts to deflect from that central question.
Click to expand...

If Congress cared so much about Ukraine why did they not get all over Obummer to send Military aid to them instead of blankets and bottled water during the last two years of his presidency?
 
#30,521
#30,521
Mick said:
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Sunday he’s “disappointed” in the vast number of Republicans unwilling to put partisan politics aside to evaluate allegations of President Trump’s wrongdoing as part of the ongoing impeachment process.
Brown called out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for saying last week that he’ll work in “total coordination” with the White House during the expected Senate trial.
“It’s why I’m so disappointed in my colleagues’ see-no-evil, hear-no-evil attitude,” Brown said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union." “That they don’t want to look at anything that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.”
Click to expand...
That’s some rich BS right there
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, volfanjustin and StarRaider
#30,523
#30,523
luthervol said:
They didn't go against the constitution. They just impeached him on the evidence that was available. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top