The Impeachment Thread

#33,676
#33,676
AM64 said:
If someone is impeached, he's impeached. If not, it just illustrates again that politicians can't be trusted with words. An event happens, or it doesn't. If you want to say that the house proceedings were like a grand jury, and the senate is a trial, then he has yet to be impeached.
Click to expand...

An impeachment is analogous to an indictment, but whatever you say man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#33,678
#33,678
Septic said:
Of course it will. Sadly, if this is the case Trump will forever be known for covering up his alleged crimes while colluding with the Senate majority.

My hope is that Trump will have his day in court like Rep. Doug Collins constantly whines about. Certainly Trump will request, nay, demand those with first hand knowledge of the events testify to the truth and exonerate him.
Click to expand...

Once again the accused in this country are not responsible for proving their innocence. In a trail where there is no crime the only thing to do is acquit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#33,679
#33,679
volinbham said:
it doesn't work that way. the "indictment" is called impeachment. Trump has been impeached just as Clinton and Johnson were. I presume he will not be convicted and removed from office.

people confuse the meaning of the term thinking you have to be removed from office to be impeached.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know how they view the process. That's why the part about not trusting politicians with words. With the right party mix, it falls completely in line with "give him a fair trial and hang him". The first part marks him regardless of what the second part does. Rectal/cranial inversion.
 
#33,680
#33,680
volinbham said:
Really quick (no witnesses) or long process (witnesses). It's abundantly clear that if the witness option is exercised that the door is open wide and at least 2 Bidens, Schiff and the whistleblower will be on the list. Based on what they say that might trigger a deeper dive into who the whistleblower was coordinating with. IOW it's going to be an interesting game of chicken for the Dems. If you want to witnesses that are providing new information (not simply recalling witnesses as was done in the Clinton impeachment) then be prepared for the door you open.
Click to expand...
I'm all for that. As long as it also means that Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Robert Hyde and Devin Nunes are also on the list. At least at this stage, there is far more evidence of wrongdoing among those men (especially Hyde and Nunes) and the potential for political peril, than there is for the Bidens and Schiff (or the whistleblower) ... and honestly, the Republicans have so much more to lose politically if all of these people do testify.
 
#33,682
#33,682
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm all for that. As long as it also means that Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Robert Hyde and Devin Nunes are also on the list. At least at this stage, there is far more evidence of wrongdoing among those men (especially Hyde and Nunes) and the potential for political peril, than there is for the Bidens and Schiff (or the whistleblower) ... and honestly, the Republicans have so much more to lose politically if all of these people do testify.
Click to expand...
I'm sure.
 
#33,683
#33,683
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm all for that. As long as it also means that Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Robert Hyde and Devin Nunes are also on the list. At least at this stage, there is far more evidence of wrongdoing among those men (especially Hyde and Nunes) and the potential for political peril, than there is for the Bidens and Schiff (or the whistleblower) ... and honestly, the Republicans have so much more to lose politically if all of these people do testify.
Click to expand...

So all the Dems are asking is for 10 more witnesses? None of which the House bothered to call? Got ya
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#33,684
#33,684
Septic said:
Of course it will. Sadly, if this is the case Trump will forever be known for covering up his alleged crimes while colluding with the Senate majority.

My hope is that Trump will have his day in court like Rep. Doug Collins constantly whines about. Certainly Trump will request, nay, demand those with first hand knowledge of the events testify to the truth and exonerate him.
Click to expand...

Or he was falsely charged by a corrupt house with a dim majority. I mean they were screaming IMPEACH before the inauguration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64, VolnJC and 2 others
#33,685
#33,685
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm all for that. As long as it also means that Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, William Barr, Rick Perry, Robert Hyde and Devin Nunes are also on the list. At least at this stage, there is far more evidence of wrongdoing among those men (especially Hyde and Nunes) and the potential for political peril, than there is for the Bidens... and honestly, the Republicans have so much more to lose politically if all of these people do testify.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'm betting there's lot's of Dem hands in getting this whistle blower. Further there's plenty of circumstantial evidence linking Dems to election (2016) interference via Ukraine. It's a rabbit hole that exposes a nasty system. All is tangental enough to merit inclusion.

Since the Dems want a "fair process" and "transparency" and "if you're innocent then you should testify" we'll see how hard they fight against witnesses that shed light on their actions.

My prediction is Dems will huff and puff about the need for witnesses (already happening), complain loudly about not having any that might embarrass them and ultimately not press the issue if it's clear that Schiff, Biden etc will actually be called. Then they'll say it wasn't fair because there were not witnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, hog88, AM64 and 2 others
#33,686
#33,686
vols40 said:
So all the Dems are asking is for 10 more witnesses? None of which the House bothered to call? Got ya
Click to expand...
Once again, the House Oversight Committee was going to subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to testify, but their counsel, on instructions from the White House told the House Oversight Committee that they would not comply with those subpoenas and they would file suit and fight the subpoenas in court... and that they would only appear before the House if compelled by a federal court, which would take somewhere between 5-7 months (as was the case with White House counsel Don McGahn). The House opted not to wait and moved forward with impeachment proceedings. For what it's worth, Bolton now says that he would testify if subpoenaed.
 
#33,688
#33,688
BowlBrother85 said:
Once again, the House Oversight Committee was going to subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to testify, but their counsel, on instructions from the White House told the House Oversight Committee that they would not comply with those subpoenas and they would file suit and fight the subpoenas in court... and that they would only appear before the House if compelled by a federal court, which would take somewhere between 5-7 months (as was the case with White House counsel Don McGahn). The House opted not to wait and moved forward with impeachment proceedings. For what it's worth, Bolton now says that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Bolton saying he would fight a House subpoena but they never bothered.

Just because it would take time doesn't mean you just get to charge obstruction when the E branch uses the judicial system as they are allowed. It's ludicrous and EVERY administration has had instances of non-compliance until the courts rule otherwise. Article 2 is a non-starter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, tbwhhs, vols40 and 1 other person
#33,690
#33,690
BowlBrother85 said:
Once again, the House Oversight Committee was going to subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to testify, but their counsel, on instructions from the White House told the House Oversight Committee that they would not comply with those subpoenas and they would file suit and fight the subpoenas in court... and that they would only appear before the House if compelled by a federal court, which would take somewhere between 5-7 months (as was the case with White House counsel Don McGahn). The House opted not to wait and moved forward with impeachment proceedings. For what it's worth, Bolton now says that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Click to expand...

And it could still take 5-7 months.
 
#33,692
#33,692
C-south said:
Or he was falsely charged by a corrupt house with a dim majority. I mean they were screaming IMPEACH before the inauguration.
Click to expand...

Surely he'd want to stick it to the corrupt dims in an election year? Embarrassing Pelosi and her caucus under the brightest lights by exposing their 'sham' trail by simply having his closest tell the truth.

Right?
 
#33,693
#33,693
BowlBrother85 said:
Once again, the House Oversight Committee was going to subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to testify, but their counsel, on instructions from the White House told the House Oversight Committee that they would not comply with those subpoenas and they would file suit and fight the subpoenas in court... and that they would only appear before the House if compelled by a federal court, which would take somewhere between 5-7 months (as was the case with White House counsel Don McGahn). The House opted not to wait and moved forward with impeachment proceedings. For what it's worth, Bolton now says that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Click to expand...

LMAO. So now what's going to compel these people to testify? That is the most chicken $hite response ever. Oh it may take a little while to get our way and that's not fair? 218 congressman and 67 senators now have precedent for overturning the will of 60 plus million. Is this what you support?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#33,694
#33,694
Septic said:
If you're going to participate in the discussion, a basic understanding of the subject matter is expected. Fifth grade civics would have prepared you for this thread.

The House impeaches, the Senate is not involved in the aspect of what is analogous to an indictment.
Click to expand...
The senate isn’t involved?
 
#33,696
#33,696
vols40 said:
LMAO. So now what's going to compel these people to testify? That is the most chicken $hite response ever. Oh it may take a little while to get our way and that's not fair? 218 congressman and 67 senators now have precedent for overturning the will of 60 plus million. Is this what you support?
Click to expand...

I think this impeachment effort is bogus but I do support the bolded if merited - you can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you support. This is the process. History shows that the 67 part (or the prevailing 2/3rds in the case of Johnson) is not likely.
 
#33,698
#33,698
volinbham said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'm betting there's lot's of Dem hands in getting this whistle blower. Further there's plenty of circumstantial evidence linking Dems to election (2016) interference via Ukraine. It's a rabbit hole that exposes a nasty system. All is tangental enough to merit inclusion.

Since the Dems want a "fair process" and "transparency" and "if you're innocent then you should testify" we'll see how hard they fight against witnesses that shed light on their actions.

My prediction is Dems will huff and puff about the need for witnesses (already happening), complain loudly about not having any that might embarrass them and ultimately not press the issue if it's clear that Schiff, Biden etc will actually be called. Then they'll say it wasn't fair because there were not witnesses.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine what that is, unless you are referring to the Alexandra Chalupa allegations... which outside of an article that ran in Politico, remain unsupported. And what was ever done to bring forth the whistleblower is not germane to the question of whether or not Trump did withhold the military aid from the Ukraine so he could leverage it against Zelensky's willingness to perform a political favor for him. If it happened? It might look bad for a while, but it wouldn't exonerate Trump.

I would gladly offer up the Bidens, Schiff, Alexandra Chalupa and the whistleblower if it meant getting Rudy Giuliani, Robert Hyde, John Bolton, Rick Perry, Devin Nunes, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo on the stand.
 
#33,700
#33,700
vols40 said:
Brightest lights? Those impeachment ratings were terrible. Lol
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is lacking. The Senate trail would be the brightest lights, it's where Pelosi and her caucus would be embarrassed by Trump's witnesses.

Try to keep up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top