1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Seems more like stating facts!

Another personal baiting post ignored.

38 minutes ago, Sticky Wicket said:

Dems are desperate and desperate people do desperate things

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html

Did it occur to you that it was the repubs barging into a secure room with phones demanding access to a hearing that they do have access to.?

 

now that is desperation. And on topic.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't understand how anyone can be so blind to the fact that Trump is being prevented from defending himself.  That's unconstitutional.  Amazing that so many are willing to disregard a constitutional right as long as it allows for the impeachment of someone they hate.  Now it's your turn.  Please explain how it is constitutional to deny someone to defend himself and why you agree that it's a good idea?

Since I'm feeling magnanimous today I will help you out:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-is-the-impeachment-process-fair

 

Hope this helps you with your incomprehension and that we won't see any more posts from you falsely claiming that the process of impeachment is unconstitutional. OK?

I'm not one to defend the Clintons but this hypocrisy is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in both Benghazi and the Email probes. Even by Trump's own justice department. Yet those were treated with the same level of outrage that Trump's scandals have been... The difference is that Trump was not cleared of wrongdoing. He DID obstruct justice, very clearly. He did attempt to collude with Russia, that also is clear by the tower meeting. And he clearly sought dirt on Joe Biden in the next election from another foreign government. Meanwhile the same republicans who thumped those drums and threatened to impeach Clinton the day after she was elected are now doing everything they can to protect Trump.

republicans are, if nothing else, consistently inconsistent.

 

(BTW, two of today's stormers: gaetz and king both lost all their committee assignments; gaetz for threatening a Congressional witness, King for Racist utterings.

 

Benghazi, we hardly knew ye.

What's the point of the secrecy?  There isn't a justifiable reason for it.

 

 

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

WASHINGTON — As dozens of House members in charge of the impeachment investigations sit in on closed-door depositions about Ukraine, at least one person in the room has unusually close ties to President Donald Trump’s administration — Vice President Mike Pence’s older brother, Rep. Greg Pence.

Meanwhile Mike and Mother are meeting with architects on how to tastefully and constitutionally install a Jesus on the South Portico... 

It can't be retroactive but the full house should vote on a house rule that explicitly spells out that such thug style attacks on constitutionally legitimate private depositions be subject to massive financial fines and formal public censure. Extra and much more severe punishment for breaching security with banned devices. Then those hypocritical republicans can go on record for being for the constitution and rule of law, or not. 

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by Jingthing

4 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Actually writing such a statement, for posterity, is revealing, and not in a good way.

 

 

 

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution: 

.

.

.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment. 

 

 

So do let us know how it is "Unconstitutional"?

 

 

 

Simple - Trump said so. He also discussed the "phony" emoluments clause, has repeatedly stated his preference for eliminating the 1st Amendment...yes a real constitutionalist. So basically, whatever Trump says is the law according to his followers. After all, God chose him, he has utmost wisdom, he never lies, etc. This is how democracy dies.

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What's the point of the secrecy?  There isn't a justifiable reason for it.

 

 

No justifiable point?

 

How about 2 points.

 

1. Witnesses can discuss issues of national security.

2. Witnesses cannot hear each others testimony so they cannot collude with each other.

 

Both for nixon and clinton the investigation was in secret.

 

People that are not on such committees have no right to be there. Gaetz has been stripped of his committees so his only right is to shut the hell up.

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

People that are not on such committees have no right to be there.

 

Note that more than half of the GOP stormers are eligible to attend the hearings.

 

I realize that they can't argue any facts, can't attack, can't deflect and certainly can't defend the president. What does that leave them? Acting like idiots I guess.

 

 

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by mtls2005

5 hours ago, keith101 said:

 

What an absolute bunch of losers at the behest of the soon to be IMPEACHED Trump .

Children without discipline. They just helped the rest of the world lose any faith in USA.

Interesting....

 

[The New York City Bar Association is demanding that U.S. Attorney General William Barr recuse himself from the Department of Justice probe into the Trump-Ukraine phone call that is central to the impeachment inquiry against the president, citing potential conflicts of interest.]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/william-barr-must-recuse-himself-from-ukraine-probe-new-york-city-bar-association-says/ar-AAJgdM7?ocid=wispr

 

Barr hasn't been known for the doing the right thing, but if he were to recuse himself from this whole Ukraine fiasco, Trump will be toast.   

5 hours ago, sfokevin said:

It should be noted that in every one of these closed door interviews of witnesses there are an equal number of Democrats and Republicans sitting at the table!... 

 

To include Republican Rep. Greg Pence, Vice President Mike Pence's older brother, who serves on one of the committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry.

 

Edited :  Okay, now have read all the pages and see this was pointed out already - apologies for repetition!

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by Misty
noting duplication

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

What's the point of the secrecy?  There isn't a justifiable reason for it.

 

 

The justifiable reason is to withhold information from witnesses who have yet to give testimony and thereby prevent witnesses ‘gaming’ the investigation.

 

Common practice during investigations.

 

And clearly something the Republicans on the committees se the value of since they are not leaking details.

6 hours ago, keith101 said:

Trump lovers are fools to trust him

 

And people who love the democrats are wise to trust them??

Another thing when this investigation evolves to witnesses being questioned in public hearings the republicans will call that a circus.

 

So don't be fooled by any of their transparently hypocritical antics about process. The republicans problem isn't about private or public. Their problem is that the facts we already know point to a well deserved and inevitable impeachment of their president. He deserves conviction as well as the majority of Americans already realize based on recent polls.

 

In other words they're freaking out and acting out of desperation now. Ignore their noise and continue on with this needed process of Impeachment when you have a president that outrageously abuses her power.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by Jingthing

Here's the good news. 

 

These idiots did not prevent DoD Official Laura Cooper giving her testimony. 

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And people who love the democrats are wise to trust them??

Well the dems seem to be the only ones following the rules and acting within the legal framework.

 

They also didnt win the gold medal for lying.

It's up to the Dems....the more secrecy employed the more suspicious the verdict.

 

 

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It's up to the Dems....the more secrecy employed the more suspicious the verdict.

 

 

What verdict? These hearings are only preliminary to actual impeachment procedings. And impeachment itself is only equivalent to an indictment. Not to a verdict.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I am pleased.  Very pleased.  This unconstitutional impeachment attempt will be the final nail in the coffin of the Dem party.  How can one not be pleased?

unconstitutional ?
kindly explain what is unconstitutional about it ?

unconstitutional ?
kindly explain what is unconstitutional about it ?

Don't expect much of an answer. The people still following 45 are following a leader that has no knowledge or respect for the constitution. He recently called the emoluments clause phony. Presidents take an oath to uphold the constitution. This one defiles it a similar way that he degrades the dignity of the office of the president. We have here the most impeachment worthy president in history. It must be done. It will be done. The republican senators will need to choose between their loyalty to a personality cult or their country and constitution.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What verdict? These hearings are only preliminary to actual impeachment procedings. And impeachment itself is only equivalent to an indictment. Not to a verdict.

Ok then.......the more secrecy employed the more suspicious the findings that will be presented.

24 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It's up to the Dems....the more secrecy employed the more suspicious the verdict.

 

 

There is no verdict until the hearings are open. This is only an investigation. This fact has been explained to you over and over.

 

But i cant really blame you as after all you do support trump.

as a non lawyer, non constitutional lawyer at that i will refrain from passing any judgements. just wait for the outcome.

 

seems lots of keyboard lawyers here getting emotionally charged.

 

wait for the outcome.

 

jai yen yen.  sabai sabai

There is no verdict until the hearings are open. This is only an investigation. This fact has been explained to you over and over.
 
But i cant really blame you as after all you do support trump.

Exactly.
In the house there is no trial or verdict.
That happens in the senate.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts will preside.


Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

as a non lawyer, non constitutional lawyer at that i will refrain from passing any judgements. just wait for the outcome.
 
seems lots of keyboard lawyers here getting emotionally charged.
 
wait for the outcome.
 
jai yen yen.  sabai sabai

Up to you. At this point it does look like it will take until the end of the year for the House to vote for impeachment based on the specific articles of Impeachment that are drafted. Obviously Ukrainegate will be the key and prominent article. Yes it's already definite that the house will impeach as this president has basically impeached himself by opening reveling damning evidence even on television multiple times.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

34 minutes ago, atyclb said:

as a non lawyer, non constitutional lawyer at that i will refrain from passing any judgements. just wait for the outcome.
 
seems lots of keyboard lawyers here getting emotionally charged.
 
wait for the outcome.
 
jai yen yen.  sabai sabai

Up to you. At this point it does look like it will take until the end of the year for the House to vote for impeachment based on the specific articles of Impeachment that are drafted. Obviously Ukrainegate will be the key and prominent article. Yes it's already definite that the house will impeach as this president has basically impeached himself by opening reveling damning evidence even on television multiple times.

 

we all listened to msm and heard about the damning evidence on russian collusion for what, 2 years

 

recall the story about "the boy who cried wolf" ??

 

by saying this i am in no way predicting any outcome, just not excited much about internet content 

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by atyclb

 
we all listened to msm and heard about the damning evidence on russian collusion for what, 2 years
 
recall the story about "the boy who cried wolf" ??
 
by saying this i am in no way predicting any outcome, just not excited much about internet content 

It's a Fox news type myth that the Mueller report was limited to investigating collusion. The broader focus was Russian interference in the election which was solidly proven. Indeed there were numerous convictions and about 10 open cases of obstruction of justice involving the president. You can be skeptical all you like but this impeachment focused on Ukrainegate will definitely happen. Conviction is another matter entirely.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app