Democrats set Thursday vote on U.S. House path in Trump impeachment probe

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

So you dont like anyone following the cinstitution and house rules.

Those two concepts are not related. its an interesting interplay with the broad interpretaion of the 5th amendment though. I doubt the Supreme Court would agree that the House is exempt from due process requirements.

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Not true. Mueller did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice and explicitly stated so.

And he sicced his private attorney - whose first loyalty is to the interests of his client and not to the interests of the US government- on the Ukrainian government. 

It is not a prosecutor's role to "clear" or "exonerate" any American. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Most hearings have been made behind closed doors in the Clinton case. It was also the same for the Benghazi case.

 

The law does not allow them to take him to the courts. And there is no reason it should be exactly the same procedure as with Clinton. Oh, remind me, how long had Clinton been investigated before the first House vote?

Benghazi was not an impeachment.

 

Regardless of all the procedural back and forth, this whole revenge fiasco is political suicide for the Democrats, and those who dont see that truly are blinded. It could destroy the Democratic party as we know it for a generation.

[Crazy Alex]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nice try. Impeachment investigation was being done. He resigned before the vote. 

 

Claim it as a win for him. ????

There is no need for me to "try" anything. I never commented on whether an impeachment investigation was done. I simply stated a fact: Nixon was never impeached. There is nothing you can do to change history and facts:

 

"With his political support completely eroded, Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974. It is widely believed that had Nixon not resigned, he would have been impeached by the House and removed from office by a trial before the United States Senate."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

 

I don't recall anyone talking about a win for Nixon regarding anything in the Watergate affair. Thus, your attempt to put words into anyone's mouth is hereby rejected.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Those two concepts are not related. its an interesting interplay with the broad interpretaion of the 5th amendment though. I doubt the Supreme Court would agree that the House is exempt from due process requirements.

 

 

It is. And repubs changed the rules in 2015 to allow dems to do this.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Benghazi was not an impeachment.

 

Regardless of all the procedural back and forth, this whole revenge fiasco is political suicide for the Democrats, and those who dont see that truly are blinded. It could destroy the Democratic party as we know it for a generation.

If its political suicide then you must be happy its happening. So stop complaining

[candide]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Benghazi was not an impeachment.

 

Regardless of all the procedural back and forth, this whole revenge fiasco is political suicide for the Democrats, and those who dont see that truly are blinded. It could destroy the Democratic party as we know it for a generation.

Well,if it's the case, I wonder why Trump's supporters are on the front and why they look so distressed. And also why Trump is witholding evidence.

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Oh gawd man. U sure u are a lawyer?

 

He cannot be charged in the courts. For anything.

Are you sure you are? Who said anyhting about him being charged in the Courts (which is not a very lawyerly way to put it). We are talking about enforcement of a subpoenae.

 

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is no special counsel investigating this. So congress doung its own ivestigation, in private, as Starr did. 

Nice talking point. But Starr performed a criminal investigation under proceudral rules that afforded due process to the putative Defendant, vis, Clinton.

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, candide said:

And also why Trump is witholding evidence.

Because normal people don't cooperate with people who are trying to destroy them.

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

If its political suicide then you must be happy its happening. So stop complaining

Im complaining because of the effects on the polity caused by this Democratic sore loser fiasco. The Democrats are finished regardless. The impeachment proceeding in the Senate will totally destroy whats left. Surley you are smart enough to see what will happen if articles of impeachment are voted out?

[Nyezhov]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

Well,if it's the case, I wonder why Trump's supporters are on the front and why they look so distressed. And also why Trump is witholding evidence.

Who is distressed. They are holding the cards. Are you too blind to see it too? Am I the only one here who sees the trap thats being laid for the Dems?

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Are you sure you are? Who said anyhting about him being charged in the Courts (which is not a very lawyerly way to put it). We are talking about enforcement of a subpoenae.

 

Nice talking point. But Starr performed a criminal investigation under proceudral rules that afforded due process to the putative Defendant, vis, Clinton.

Nonsense. He investigated using a grand jury. What protections are there for witnesses in a grand jury? Look up the case of Susan McDougal.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

What has been described as a transcript is not a true transcript.  There is probably a recording of the phone call, but the White House doesn't want to admit or release it. 

 

People being blackmailed often won't admit it, especially if the future of their country is at stake.  Besides, as noted, it is the President's intent that matters, and all who took part in this crime understood his intent to be blackmail.

 

Once again, soliciting foreign assistance in an election is illegal.  People who insist that this be repeated over and over are trolling.

 

The ball is rolling.  Trump will be impeached.  The Senate may not convict, but history will not be kind to those Senators who put their re-election above their duty to hold the President accountable.

 

16 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Any competant evidence of that? How do you know, if all the testimony has been in secret?

 

Is that a spin way of saying that...There is no victim? The alleged victim of this scheme denies it occured? Then you have no crime to even take it further.

 

From what facts do you infer his intent? Is the Presdient of the USA entitled to ask other countries to do us favours? Have other Presidents asked for quid pro quo? Is a quid pro quo in foreign affairs unlawful per se? Others took part in this "crime"? Who?

 

Isnt that a question of intent? How do you prove that?

 

Im truly interested in all this, because I cant understand how oestensibly intelligent human beings keep screaming that impeachment is warranted where they cant even show what high crime or misd was involved and when they dont even ask themselves the basic questions as set forth here.

Competent evidence?  How about a paragraph on the first page of the phone call "transcript":

 

"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the reco�d, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear."   https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-transcript-of-trumps-call-with-ukraines-prime-minister

 

The victim is the United States.  Trump is acting like a corrupt third world dictator, which damages our credibility.  In addition, by holding up Congressionally approved aid in order to get to discredited conspiracy theories publicly investigated he is obstructing US foreign policy.

 

Presidents can ask for favors that benefit the US or the world.  Asking for in investigation in ridiculous conspiracy theories that might help Trump's re-election campaign don't benefit anyone but Trump.  It is also illegal.

 

Read all the notes on the conversation.  They clearly show that after President Zelensky brought up Javelin anti-tank missiles, Trump replied with his now infamous "I would like you to do us a favor though..."  The rest of the conversation details how he wants the Bidens investigated and an investigation about a ridiculous conspiracy theory regarding the Democratic server. 

 

That looks like a quid pro quo to reasonable people.  The only other explanation I can think of is that Trump is a senile old fool with a short attention span and a fascination with BS conspiracy theories, such as the one about Obama being born in Kenya.  Either way I don't want him as President.

 

What is your interpretation of the phone call?  What legitimate purpose could be served by holding up military aid and investigating conspiracy theories?  What makes the phone call "perfect"?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Irrelevant, given Nixon was never impeached.

Very relevant.  Nixon resigned because he knew he was going to be impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

when? You mean the Clinton Impeachment?

 

Why dont I complain? Simply because I beleive that the entire proceeding is a kangaroo star chamber soviet banana republic style put up job by the deep state and the dems to get Trump for something, anything, and they have chosen to invent a high crime and misdemeanor that they could push out information selectively from behind closed doors and get their ignorant base all worked up as well as use the proceedings in an attempt to influence the election.

 

That being said, the Dems should either:

Take him to the Courts or

Set things up exactly like they did for Clinton. Then I would complain if he didnt comply. Because accusations are valid in my book where there is due process, the thing that separates us from the troikas.

 

 

They wont do either though. They are afraid the Courts will give them short shrift plus string this out, and they are afraid if they allow due process, their machinations will be exposed.

 

 

 

 

"Set things up exactly like they did for Clinton."

 

You think the Democrats should get an anti-Trump prosecutor and give him unlimited time and money to dig up any dirt he can on Trump.  Ok, if you say so.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

It is not a prosecutor's role to "clear" or "exonerate" any American. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Again with the prosecutor deflection.  Mueller was not prosecuting, he was investigating.  His investigation made it clear that the results did not exonerate Trump. 

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.

 

[candide]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Who is distressed. They are holding the cards. Are you too blind to see it too? Am I the only one here who sees the trap thats being laid for the Dems?

Not distressed? Desperately trying to address any peripheral issue other than the core one isn't showing distress? Lol

[Crazy Alex]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Again with the prosecutor deflection.  Mueller was not prosecuting, he was investigating.  His investigation made it clear that the results did not exonerate Trump. 

First off, it wasn't even Mueller's investigation. He doesn't even know basic facts about it. But let's set that aside.

 

Secondly, of course he acted as a prosecutor. That's why he INDICTED Russians. His name is on the indictment. That's what prosecutors do. They investigate and prosecute.

 

They do NOT exonerate. That's not their role. So no, there's no prosecutor deflection. We've now established your assertion about Mueller not prosecuting is a lie. And the fact that all Americans are presumed innocent completely destroys your response.

[Credo]

14 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

First off, it wasn't even Mueller's investigation. He doesn't even know basic facts about it. But let's set that aside.

 

Secondly, of course he acted as a prosecutor. That's why he INDICTED Russians. His name is on the indictment. That's what prosecutors do. They investigate and prosecute.

 

They do NOT exonerate. That's not their role. So no, there's no prosecutor deflection. We've now established your assertion about Mueller not prosecuting is a lie. And the fact that all Americans are presumed innocent completely destroys your response.

Mueller made it clear that he could not PROSECUTE a sitting President, per DOJ rules.   Oh, and Mueller could have exonerated, but he didn't and there is a good reason why.   

 

[Crazy Alex]

10 minutes ago, Credo said:

Mueller made it clear that he could not PROSECUTE a sitting President, per DOJ rules.   Oh, and Mueller could have exonerated, but he didn't and there is a good reason why.   

 

Correct on the one hand. Mueller wasn't going to indict the president. Still, the fact remains prosecutors don't exonerate. There is no need for exoneration for American citizens as we are presumed innocent.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

First off, it wasn't even Mueller's investigation. He doesn't even know basic facts about it. But let's set that aside.

 

Secondly, of course he acted as a prosecutor. That's why he INDICTED Russians. His name is on the indictment. That's what prosecutors do. They investigate and prosecute.

 

They do NOT exonerate. That's not their role. So no, there's no prosecutor deflection. We've now established your assertion about Mueller not prosecuting is a lie. And the fact that all Americans are presumed innocent completely destroys your response.

Mueller was investigating.  He wrote the report on the investigation.  The report clearly stated that the investigation did not exonerate Trump.  What part of that are you unclear on?

 

The prosecutions will take place in court.  Mueller will not be the prosecutor. 

[Nyezhov]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Not distressed? Desperately trying to address any peripheral issue other than the core one isn't showing distress? Lol

you guys dont see it.

 

Here, try this scenario:

 

December 2019-some whatever Articles of Impeachment are voted out.

January 2020-the Repub Senate sets the rules. Off the trail for Liz and Bernie and Kamala, assuming she isnt in the dust with Beto. Same with Cory.

Late Jan  2020-The Prosecution makes its opening statement. Trumps lawyers reserve their right. Testimony starts. Off the trail for the Dem Candidates. Impeachment dominates the news cycle.

Late January-Februry 2020-cross examination of witnesses against Trump began an exploration of what we can call the sore loser, deep state theory, because in trials, you always set up the theory of your case before you even present any evidence. If the alleged whistleblower testifies, he is grilled about his connections to Schiff, Biden etc. Every witness is cross examined as to their Democratic connections. Hannity and Tucker blast out verbatim testimony favourable to Trump to their combined 7 million viewers. No one pays any attention to the dem candidates as they just sit there and listen. Campaigning is ignored. All the objections to the insinuations of the defense are overruled by the Repub Senate.

Feb 2020-Trumps lawyers make their opening statement, alleging that the entire proceeding is a concoted conspiracy between the Democrats, Russians AND Ukrainians to overturn the election. The Press goes wild. Trumps fundraising goes through the roof. The Dem candidates are ignored.

Feb-March 2020- Various Presidential Historians and Constituional Scholars testify about the Presidents powers to do this and that, and how what Trump did was no different, etc etc. The Dem candidates try to sneak out and campaign, and get villfied for it by the more responsible journalists.

March 2020-Judge Sullivan tosses out Flynns conviction and goes apesh*t on the Mueller team (for those of you who dont know Judge Sullivan, look up the Senator Stevens case). The press goes wild.

March 2020-Hillary Clinton, Podesta, the Clinton Tech dudes, Comey, Brennan, Strzok, McCabe, Rosenstein, Page et al are subpoenaed to testify. They all plead the 5th, as some of them have been notified they are already targets of an investigation. The Press goes wild. The Dem candidates are ignored.

April 2020-Schiff is then called as a witness. He takes the 5th. Then one of the deepstaters cuts a deal and testifies. Thats all thats on the news 24/7. Folks dont even realize who is running for President

April-May 2020-The Senate votes to aquitt. Oh my, what do the Pres candidates do? Or the Dems running for relection?

 

Meanwhile, Trump is fundraising like crazy at rally after rally. Mayor Pete and the two socialists are now splitting the vote coming into the convention.

 

Summer 2020-just as the convention starts, Comey et al are indicted. 

 

Now Im sure that the dedicated Trump haters will fill page after page of alternative scenarios and thats fine, life is variable and s**t happens. It doesnt matter. You cant argue with the plausability of what I have set forth. And thats the point. Even the Mets can win the pennant.

 

When you strike at the King, you must kill him. The Dems have been making these little cuts and just annoying him. Now is his chance. Do you honestly think that Trump will let this chance go by without making it a media spectacle? Do you think the Repubs will put any limits on what Trumps lawyers can say, do, or present? Can you imagine having some CIA dude admit that there is a "deep state"?

 

The bottom line of the impeachment vote is that the Dems have put up the circus tent and given Don the keys, an audience, and a bunch of clowns to staff it. It truly is the dumbest thing I have seen in politics. And its no good for the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

you guys dont see it.

 

Here, try this scenario:

 

December 2019-some whatever Articles of Impeachment are voted out.

January 2020-the Repub Senate sets the rules. Off the trail for Liz and Bernie and Kamala, assuming she isnt in the dust with Beto. Same with Cory.

Late Jan  2020-The Prosecution makes its opening statement. Trumps lawyers reserve their right. Testimony starts. Off the trail for the Dem Candidates. Impeachment dominates the news cycle.

Late January-Februry 2020-cross examination of witnesses against Trump began an exploration of what we can call the sore loser, deep state theory, because in trials, you always set up the theory of your case before you even present any evidence. If the alleged whistleblower testifies, he is grilled about his connections to Schiff, Biden etc. Every witness is cross examined as to their Democratic connections. Hannity and Tucker blast out verbatim testimony favourable to Trump to their combined 7 million viewers. No one pays any attention to the dem candidates as they just sit there and listen. Campaigning is ignored. All the objections to the insinuations of the defense are overruled by the Repub Senate.

Feb 2020-Trumps lawyers make their opening statement, alleging that the entire proceeding is a concoted conspiracy between the Democrats, Russians AND Ukrainians to overturn the election. The Press goes wild. Trumps fundraising goes through the roof. The Dem candidates are ignored.

Feb-March 2020- Various Presidential Historians and Constituional Scholars testify about the Presidents powers to do this and that, and how what Trump did was no different, etc etc. The Dem candidates try to sneak out and campaign, and get villfied for it by the more responsible journalists.

March 2020-Judge Sullivan tosses out Flynns conviction and goes apesh*t on the Mueller team (for those of you who dont know Judge Sullivan, look up the Senator Stevens case). The press goes wild.

March 2020-Hillary Clinton, Podesta, the Clinton Tech dudes, Comey, Brennan, Strzok, McCabe, Rosenstein, Page et al are subpoenaed to testify. They all plead the 5th, as some of them have been notified they are already targets of an investigation. The Press goes wild. The Dem candidates are ignored.

April 2020-Schiff is then called as a witness. He takes the 5th. Then one of the deepstaters cuts a deal and testifies. Thats all thats on the news 24/7. Folks dont even realize who is running for President

April-May 2020-The Senate votes to aquitt. Oh my, what do the Pres candidates do? Or the Dems running for relection?

 

Meanwhile, Trump is fundraising like crazy at rally after rally. Mayor Pete and the two socialists are now splitting the vote coming into the convention.

 

Summer 2020-just as the convention starts, Comey et al are indicted. 

 

Now Im sure that the dedicated Trump haters will fill page after page of alternative scenarios and thats fine, life is variable and s**t happens. It doesnt matter. You cant argue with the plausability of what I have set forth. And thats the point. Even the Mets can win the pennant.

 

When you strike at the King, you must kill him. The Dems have been making these little cuts and just annoying him. Now is his chance. Do you honestly think that Trump will let this chance go by without making it a media spectacle? Do you think the Repubs will put any limits on what Trumps lawyers can say, do, or present? Can you imagine having some CIA dude admit that there is a "deep state"?

 

The bottom line of the impeachment vote is that the Dems have put up the circus tent and given Don the keys, an audience, and a bunch of clowns to staff it. It truly is the dumbest thing I have seen in politics. And its no good for the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's some crystal ball you've got. 

 

Pitty it failed you when you were declaring Manafort would not be convicted and go to prison, I have since that boo boo taken all your 'predictions' with a large pinch salt. 

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That's some crystal ball you've got. 

 

Pitty it failed you when you were declaring Manafort would not be convicted and go to prison, I have since that boo boo taken all your 'predictions' with a large pinch salt. 

I think it's more like an over-active imagination.  I doubt that "Trump haters"  will waste time generating alternative fantasies.

[J Town]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I think it's more like an over-active imagination.  I doubt that "Trump haters"  will waste time generating alternative fantasies.

Critics of Trump don't NEED to fantasize. We just use facts.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

you guys dont see it.

 

Here, try this scenario:

 

December 2019-some whatever Articles of Impeachment are voted out.

January 2020-the Repub Senate sets the rules. Off the trail for Liz and Bernie and Kamala, assuming she isnt in the dust with Beto. Same with Cory.

Late Jan  2020-The Prosecution makes its opening statement. Trumps lawyers reserve their right. Testimony starts. Off the trail for the Dem Candidates. Impeachment dominates the news cycle.

Late January-Februry 2020-cross examination of witnesses against Trump began an exploration of what we can call the sore loser, deep state theory, because in trials, you always set up the theory of your case before you even present any evidence. If the alleged whistleblower testifies, he is grilled about his connections to Schiff, Biden etc. Every witness is cross examined as to their Democratic connections. Hannity and Tucker blast out verbatim testimony favourable to Trump to their combined 7 million viewers. No one pays any attention to the dem candidates as they just sit there and listen. Campaigning is ignored. All the objections to the insinuations of the defense are overruled by the Repub Senate.

Feb 2020-Trumps lawyers make their opening statement, alleging that the entire proceeding is a concoted conspiracy between the Democrats, Russians AND Ukrainians to overturn the election. The Press goes wild. Trumps fundraising goes through the roof. The Dem candidates are ignored.

Feb-March 2020- Various Presidential Historians and Constituional Scholars testify about the Presidents powers to do this and that, and how what Trump did was no different, etc etc. The Dem candidates try to sneak out and campaign, and get villfied for it by the more responsible journalists.

March 2020-Judge Sullivan tosses out Flynns conviction and goes apesh*t on the Mueller team (for those of you who dont know Judge Sullivan, look up the Senator Stevens case). The press goes wild.

March 2020-Hillary Clinton, Podesta, the Clinton Tech dudes, Comey, Brennan, Strzok, McCabe, Rosenstein, Page et al are subpoenaed to testify. They all plead the 5th, as some of them have been notified they are already targets of an investigation. The Press goes wild. The Dem candidates are ignored.

April 2020-Schiff is then called as a witness. He takes the 5th. Then one of the deepstaters cuts a deal and testifies. Thats all thats on the news 24/7. Folks dont even realize who is running for President

April-May 2020-The Senate votes to aquitt. Oh my, what do the Pres candidates do? Or the Dems running for relection?

 

Meanwhile, Trump is fundraising like crazy at rally after rally. Mayor Pete and the two socialists are now splitting the vote coming into the convention.

 

Summer 2020-just as the convention starts, Comey et al are indicted. 

 

Now Im sure that the dedicated Trump haters will fill page after page of alternative scenarios and thats fine, life is variable and s**t happens. It doesnt matter. You cant argue with the plausability of what I have set forth. And thats the point. Even the Mets can win the pennant.

 

When you strike at the King, you must kill him. The Dems have been making these little cuts and just annoying him. Now is his chance. Do you honestly think that Trump will let this chance go by without making it a media spectacle? Do you think the Repubs will put any limits on what Trumps lawyers can say, do, or present? Can you imagine having some CIA dude admit that there is a "deep state"?

 

The bottom line of the impeachment vote is that the Dems have put up the circus tent and given Don the keys, an audience, and a bunch of clowns to staff it. It truly is the dumbest thing I have seen in politics. And its no good for the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its already clear that Sanders, Harris, and probably Klobuchar won't be nominated anyway! 

 

The sad thing about that is that Klobuchar is a much better more moderate replacement for Biden. She's actually got lots of foreign policy experience in the senate. Buttigeig might be nominated but I don't think the US will elect an openly gay president even against the horror show 45.

[J Town]

We ALL need to pray for 45.  Use this one:

Psalm 109:8

[Becker]

Fox News Poll: Biden leads nomination race, tops Trump by 12 points in matchup

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Becker said:

Fox News Poll: Biden leads nomination race, tops Trump by 12 points in matchup

Reaction from Trump:

“I have the real polls. I have the real polls,” Trump claimed. “The CNN polls are fake. The FOX polls have always been lousy, I tell them they ought to get themselves a new pollster.

????