Jump to content

Trump impeachment effort passes first test in divided U.S. Congress


webfact

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LiamB80 said:

Trump’s legal counsel can also not be present.

That's untrue. According to the procedures published already:

 

Quote

... the president and his counsel “shall be invited” to attend hearings involving initial presentations of evidence to and the calling of witnesses by the Judiciary Committee ... The president’s counsel can make objections to the examination of witnesses or to the admissibility of testimony and evidence in the Judiciary Committee ... The president’s counsel can question witnesses in Judiciary Committee proceedings ... The president’s counsel can respond, orally or in writing as determined by the chair, to additional evidence presented ... The president’s counsel can propose additional testimony or evidence, ...the president’s counsel [is allowed] to make a concluding presentation ...

Quote

 

House resolution on impeachment

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 10:30 AM, Nyezhov said:

Totally proud. If I was in the white house Id turn the DOJ on Hunter and Joey.

 

 

 

 

Yes, because that's where the real story is, not with Trump and is extortion of a foreign head of state!:cheesy:

Don't look here, look over there, over theeeeeere!!

 

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2019 at 11:39 AM, BobBKK said:

What a farce!  ok for Biden to get the prosecutor sacked "or no aid" (on camera) but not ok for POTUS to ask about Biden's son working for a Ukraine company?  with ZERO experience?  really? 

 

Hypocrites!

There's a fundamental difference between the things you're trying to equate. It's OK and entirely appropriate for a Vice President to publicly carry out the clearly-stated and legitimately-established aims of US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department. Especially when pursuing that policy is in the best interests of the United States and is the agreed approach of the international community.

 

By contrast, it's not appropriate for a President to use a private phone call with a foreign leader to ask them to get information designed to help that President gain re-election while withholding military aid that was approved by Congress and when, by withholding it, you are acting contrary to US foreign policy interests.

 

Also, while I'm personally not in favour of a politician's son getting a lucrative foreign job in a country when their father is  involved in conducting US foreign policy with regard to that country (I think it smacks of influence peddling) there's no evidence of anything illegal having occurred.

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see most of commenters obsessed  with life in Ivory Tower. Who accuse who, who is fake etc.

Instead I remember previous president comrade Hussein who promised Fundamental Transformation of  United States and I guess we moving somewhere.

As life in Ivory Tower is not accessible for peasant like me I pay attention to reality around--

crime rates--never going down and never discussed,

homelessness--steady for last 100 years and never discussed,

inflation--steadily going up and never discussed,

illegal immigration--never discussed

and myriads of other real life problems affecting me daily. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, olfu said:

I see most of commenters obsessed  with life in Ivory Tower. Who accuse who, who is fake etc.

Instead I remember previous president comrade Hussein who promised Fundamental Transformation of  United States and I guess we moving somewhere.

As life in Ivory Tower is not accessible for peasant like me I pay attention to reality around--

crime rates--never going down and never discussed,

homelessness--steady for last 100 years and never discussed,

inflation--steadily going up and never discussed,

illegal immigration--never discussed

and myriads of other real life problems affecting me daily. 

You may be right (except for inflation which has remained at a low level since 2009). However, this a thread about Trump's impeachment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

There's a fundamental difference between the things you're trying to equate. It's OK and entirely appropriate for a Vice President to publicly carry out the clearly-stated and legitimately-established aims of US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department. Especially when pursuing that policy is in the best interests of the United States and is the agreed approach of the international community.

 

By contrast, it's not appropriate for a President to use a private phone call with a foreign leader to ask them to get information designed to help that President gain re-election while withholding military aid that was approved by Congress and when, by withholding it, you are acting contrary to US foreign policy interests.

 

Also, while I'm personally not in favour of a politician's son getting a lucrative foreign job in a country when their father is  involved in conducting US foreign policy with regard to that country (I think it smacks of influence peddling) there's no evidence of anything illegal having occurred.

That is absurd. It's ok to force a country to sack it's prosecutor or no aid?  really?  and his son is on the board of a company being investigated?  and he is VP?  you would be apoplectic if that was Trumps son.

As for the phone call it looks perfectly innocent to me. I have no dog in the fight as I'm not American but if I were I'd support Gabbard or Yang.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

By contrast, it's not appropriate for a President to use a private phone call with a foreign leader to ask them to get information designed to help that President gain re-election while withholding military aid that was approved by Congress and when, by withholding it, you are acting contrary to US foreign policy interests.

1. There are no "private" phone calls with foreign leaders. There are lots of listeners on both sides.

 

2. Where is the proof. Factual, non hearsay proof, that would even meet the minimal standard of a civil case under US law that demonstrates that the President was seeking to get help in his relection campaign and that he was withholding aid to get that help.

 

There is none. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...