Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

[JHolmesJr]

37 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

She so full of confident that she announced the drafting of impeachment articles just a day after Nadler’s impeachment hearing.

 

Yes...just a day, if you can believe it.

 

She has been hasty and reckless in rushing her decision. She says one thing but her actions suggest the opposite.

 

She says they are undertaking this solemnly but there is clearly huge pressure on her to announce this. The critical reports that will reveal the Dems' abuse of investigative processes will drop on Monday so they are trying to get ahead of it...so they can then say it is all politically motivated.

 

She says she doesn't hate Trump...but her voice shakes with rage whenever she talks about him. He's in her head and under her skin 24/7.

 

One thing she and Biden have in common is the tendency to babble incoherently. Why does she slur and have all these weird gestures....I personally would have her investigated for alcohol related issues ....or has that already been investigated and debunked....like all Dem activity.

 

 

 

 

[Tounge Thaied]

3 minutes ago, J Town said:

No, I'm tired of providing facts just to have people say "No, you're wrong." Trump supporters always, and I mean ALWAYS respond in one or more of the following:
Deny

Ignore

Lie

Deflect

Obfuscate

Tell you what, "bro," answer these two questions:

1) Do you acknowledge Trump called Ukraine and asked them to make a public announcement they were investigating the Bidens for corruption?

2) If so, do you find it acceptable that a U.S. president would have a foreign nation get involved in the 2020 election?

Answer these "yes" or "no." Expand as much as you want after, but initially answer "yes" or "no." Then we can go from there.

Ha ha!! So you want me to answer your questions, after you flat out refuse to answer mine. That's rich. Usually in a debate, when asked a question you answer it. Going on to require me to only answer your questions is not a debate. And I promise... I won't: 

Deny

Ignore

Lie

Deflect 

or

Obfuscate the alleged crime committed. That by the way is how it works in a civil discourse, or court of law. 

[Tounge Thaied]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

"Hearsay"...?  All the testimony was under oath and have been collaborated.  But why wasn't there first-hand information?  Because Trump has refused to allow those with first-hand information to testify.  But even if they all testified and told the truth, Trump would insist that they were lying.  So it comes down to who to believe, Trump or pretty much everyone else.  And we know that Trump is a pathological liar. 

No worries Berk. When this all hits the Senate, we will all get to hear more from the cast of characters in this charade. On to the Senate... that is the impeachment process and I can't wait. 

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

No worries Berk. When this all hits the Senate, we will all get to hear more from the cast of characters in this charade. On to the Senate... that is the impeachment process and I can't wait. 

Yeah, I've heard that some nutbag Republicans have some dirty tricks up their sleeves.  But the adults in the Senate don't intend to let that happen....

 

[On Wednesday, a conservative backbencher in the House issued an explosive request to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham: Subpoena the phone records of House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.

 

On Thursday, Graham had a succinct response: “We’re not going to do that.”]

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/senate-republicans-impeachment-trial-076673

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

If the crime Trump has committed is so obvious, just give it to us bro. You can't. There has been no crime and there has been no crime even alleged as of yet. Every bit of "testimony" has been hear say. 

Get a grip and try to understand the purpose of the house impeachment inquiry. The house inquiry is not a court and their role is to hold hearings and investigate whether impeachment is warranted. We now know that there are sufficient testimonies under oath and legal opinions for Pelosi to order the drafting of impeach emend against POTUS. 
 

As to your argument about “hearsay” which is a popular dross diversion of the Reps and their hardened supporters, the Rules of Evidence on hearsay does not apply in Congress. 

[roobaa01]

5555 a biased talkshow were democrats failed to present evidence. 3 muppets professors with one sided opinions, one prof turley receiving threats after his disagreeing statement.

charade remains charade. within this charade rep nunes sues fakenews channel cnn for usd $435 million.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Tounge Thaied]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Get a grip and try to understand the purpose of the house impeachment inquiry. The house inquiry is not a court and their role is to hold hearings and investigate whether impeachment is warranted. We now know that there are sufficient testimonies under oath and legal opinions for Pelosi to order the drafting of impeach emend against POTUS. 
 

As to your argument about “hearsay” which is a popular dross diversion of the Reps and their hardened supporters, the Rules of Evidence on hearsay does not apply in Congress. 

Thank you very well put. So now I will ask you... What crime has Trump committed? It a simple, but necessary question would you agree? What "High Crime" or "Misdemeanor has Trump committed from your point of view?

[JCauto]

17 hours ago, BobBKK said:

"hands up all those who have any evidence of Trump wrongdoing"?  None?  not ONE hand?

you know that word right?  "E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E"  the sort of thing you teach in your law schools?  pathetic

So are distinguished public civil servants whose sworn testimony directly implicates Trump not evidence? If this standard were applied to all criminal cases, there would be only stupid people in jail because the only way to get convicted would be to be caught on tape saying they done it. This is obviously not the case in any criminal inquiry, you build up evidence through actions/non-actions, communications between involved parties, understanding of those involved, the sequence of events, etc. 

As otherwise noted, the reason there is no direct evidence of Trump saying or doing anything is that they've chosen to ignore the legal subpoenas that compel them to testify. Why won't they testify if there's nothing they've done wrong? Why are they breaking the law by not testifying? What is it they're covering up?

Actually, we already know from Ambassador Sondland and numerous others. We just need confirmation to wrap this up. So get to Capitol Hill and demonstrate your innocence!

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Thank you very well put. So now I will ask you... What crime has Trump committed? It a simple, but necessary question would you agree? What "High Crime" or "Misdemeanor has Trump committed from your point of view?

Bribery, extortion, abuse of power, obstruction of justice...but I'm sure you'll just ignore the mountain of evidence.  Trump is right.  He can shoot you dead on 5th ave and no Trump supporter would care. 

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Yes...just a day, if you can believe it.

 

She has been hasty and reckless in rushing her decision. She says one thing but her actions suggest the opposite.

 

She says they are undertaking this solemnly but there is clearly huge pressure on her to announce this. The critical reports that will reveal the Dems' abuse of investigative processes will drop on Monday so they are trying to get ahead of it...so they can then say it is all politically motivated.

 

She says she doesn't hate Trump...but her voice shakes with rage whenever she talks about him. He's in her head and under her skin 24/7.

 

One thing she and Biden have in common is the tendency to babble incoherently. Why does she slur and have all these weird gestures....I personally would have her investigated for alcohol related issues ....or has that already been investigated and debunked....like all Dem activity.

 

 

 

 

Change your stance much these days. Pelosi has in the past resisted the impeachment as she weighs the risks and consequences. Guess the surmounting evidences gave her cause to ponder and the need to protect the constitution from a corrupt madman. 
 

I actually felt that FINALLY the Dems are standing up to the Trump bullying and foul mouth tactics. I am please the Dems found the courage to speak out and with vigor. Good on her. 
 

Babble incoherently is rather rich from you who supported a master of lies and incoherent slurs. 

[Skallywag]

49 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

What "High Crime (aka Felony)" or "Misdemeanor" has Trump committed? If your going to impeach a President of the USA, the constitution requires the accused to actually be accused of a crime. What crime did Donald Trump commit?

THE CRIME: "President Donald Trump illegally withheld military aid to Ukraine.

No one from the Trump administration has been able to point to any legal authority that allowed Trump to withhold the funding for the length of time and in the manner that he did. Even Trump’s defenders in the House, who have speciously claimed that the president had reasons for holding the aid other than pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, have not provided justifications that are legal. Instead, they’ve offered justifications that are more politically palatable. Moreover, Trump’s own White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was told that his actions were illegal,"

[Tounge Thaied]

2 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So are distinguished public civil servants whose sworn testimony directly implicates Trump not evidence? If this standard were applied to all criminal cases, there would be only stupid people in jail because the only way to get convicted would be to be caught on tape saying they done it. This is obviously not the case in any criminal inquiry, you build up evidence through actions/non-actions, communications between involved parties, understanding of those involved, the sequence of events, etc. 

As otherwise noted, the reason there is no direct evidence of Trump saying or doing anything is that they've chosen to ignore the legal subpoenas that compel them to testify. Why won't they testify if there's nothing they've done wrong? Why are they breaking the law by not testifying? What is it they're covering up?

Actually, we already know from Ambassador Sondland and numerous others. We just need confirmation to wrap this up. So get to Capitol Hill and demonstrate your innocence!

What crime did Trump commit? To impeach, there needs to be a "High Crime" or "Misdemeanor." Can you articulate a crime committed?

[J Town]

19 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Ha ha!! So you want me to answer your questions, after you flat out refuse to answer mine.

Didn't "flat out refuse," I explained why it's such a waste of time arguing with a Trump supporter. They're not interested in the truth, otherwise they wouldn't be Trump supporters in the first place.

 

However, the Cowboys are getting whupped so I have some time to waste. Here are just SOME of the charges that could be brought up against Trump.

 

Bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the president of committing bribery in his alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents in exchange for US security assistance and a White House meeting. She appeared to refer to the $391 million in promised security aid, which Trump withheld for 55 days, as the bribe.

 

Conspiracy. Trump could be accused of conspiring with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General William Barr, and others to illegally pressure the Ukrainian government to do political favors for him.

 

Witness intimidation. Trump illegally intimidated Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, by attacking her on Twitter while she testified before Congress.

 

Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government. Trump's conduct with Ukraine isn't the first time he's been accused of violating campaign finance laws to help him win an election. He was named as an unindicted co-conspirator, listed as Individual-1 in court documents, in the case against his former personal attorney Michael Cohen. Cohen is currently serving time for his part in this crime and has clearly implicated Trump in the same crime.

 

Obstruction of Justice. Trump provided absolutely "ZERO" of the documents subpoenaed and demanded all persons he could refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

 

Now, your two simple answers.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Bribery, extortion, abuse of power, obstruction of justice...but I'm sure you'll just ignore the mountain of evidence.  Trump is right.  He can shoot you dead on 5th ave and no Trump supporter would care. 

Exactly what I would say mate. Tks. 

[JCauto]

5 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

5555 a biased talkshow were democrats failed to present evidence. 3 muppets professors with one sided opinions, one prof turley receiving threats after his disagreeing statement.

charade remains charade. within this charade rep nunes sues fakenews channel cnn for usd $435 million.

 

wbr

roobaa01

To be perfectly clear, the one "dissenting" professor expressed concern that the process needed to be "watertight", that there needed to be a longer time for the investigation and for the people who were directly involved to testify. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to allow that. Indeed, the President suggested that the Impeachment Investigation and Trial proceed as soon as possible, something that puts him at odds with the Congressional Republicans. Which do you believe should be followed, the Professor and his Republican colleagues or the President? Do you agree with the Professor that those issued a subpoena should testify before this inquiry stage is completed?

Lastly, I have to ask "is that the new standard you'd suggest be followed from now on?" Because, if so, then when any President is investigated, they have the right to completely ignore the investigation and legal subpoenas to get the involved parties to testify, then you can close the case and be seen as "innocent" because of the lack of direct testimony to those party to the events? Remember, there will be other presidents whom you don't like so well.  Do you wish to give them this same blank cheque to do whatever they want without oversight?

[Tounge Thaied]

1 minute ago, J Town said:

Didn't "flat out refuse," I explained why it's such a waste of time arguing with a Trump supporter. They're not interested in the truth, otherwise they wouldn't be Trump supporters in the first place.

 

However, the Cowboys are getting whupped so I have some time to waste. Here are just SOME of the charges that could be brought up against Trump.

 

Bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the president of committing bribery in his alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents in exchange for US security assistance and a White House meeting. She appeared to refer to the $391 million in promised security aid, which Trump withheld for 55 days, as the bribe.

 

Conspiracy. Trump could be accused of conspiring with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General William Barr, and others to illegally pressure the Ukrainian government to do political favors for him.

 

Witness intimidation. Trump illegally intimidated Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, by attacking her on Twitter while she testified before Congress.

 

Illegally soliciting campaign help from a foreign government. Trump's conduct with Ukraine isn't the first time he's been accused of violating campaign finance laws to help him win an election. He was named as an unindicted co-conspirator, listed as Individual-1 in court documents, in the case against his former personal attorney Michael Cohen. Cohen is currently serving time for his part in this crime and has clearly implicated Trump in the same crime.

 

Obstruction of Justice. Trump provided absolutely "ZERO" of the documents subpoenaed and demanded all persons he could refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

 

Now, your two simple answers.

 

 

So the accused will get their day in court so to speak. On to the Senate... 

[J Town]

9 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

So the accused will get their day in court so to speak. On to the Senate... 

And as I predicted - you ignore my questions. Typical.

[roobaa01]

9 minutes ago, JCauto said:

To be perfectly clear, the one "dissenting" professor expressed concern that the process needed to be "watertight", that there needed to be a longer time for the investigation and for the people who were directly involved to testify. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to allow that. Indeed, the President suggested that the Impeachment Investigation and Trial proceed as soon as possible, something that puts him at odds with the Congressional Republicans. Which do you believe should be followed, the Professor and his Republican colleagues or the President? Do you agree with the Professor that those issued a subpoena should testify before this inquiry stage is completed?

Lastly, I have to ask "is that the new standard you'd suggest be followed from now on?" Because, if so, then when any President is investigated, they have the right to completely ignore the investigation and legal subpoenas to get the involved parties to testify, then you can close the case and be seen as "innocent" because of the lack of direct testimony to those party to the events? Remember, there will be other presidents whom you don't like so well.  Do you wish to give them this same blank cheque to do whatever they want without oversight?

the answers will be given by the american public with next polls.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Tounge Thaied]

5 minutes ago, J Town said:

And as I predicted - you ignore my questions. Typical.

Yeah bro... I am taking a literal "cop out", we shall see if any substance, any real evidence will be revealed as to what is really going on in the entire $^&% show. On to the Senate. 

[J Town]

3 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Yeah bro... I am taking a literal "cop out", we shall see if any substance, any real evidence will be revealed as to what is really going on in the entire $^&% show. On to the Senate. 

You do so because you know facts won't back you up. I asked you two very simple question and you refuse to answer even after saying you WOULD if I provided you information. Disingenuous at the very least.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, J Town said:

You do so because you know facts won't back you up. I asked you two very simple question and you refuse to answer even after saying you WOULD if I provided you information. Disingenuous at the very least.

 

What right do you have to demand anything of anybody? 

[J Town]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

What right do you have to demand anything of anybody? 

Another Trump supporter reply - obfuscation. I asked the member two simple questions - hell, I'll ask you the same - and this member said s/he WOULD answer them if I provided some info, then refused. I demanded NOTHING, you put those words in my mouth.

 

Let's see if YOU have the sand to answer:

1) Do you acknowledge Trump called Ukraine and asked them to make a public announcement they were investigating the Bidens for corruption?

2) If so, do you find it acceptable that a U.S. president would have a foreign nation get involved in the 2020 election?

Answer these "yes" or "no." Expand as much as you want after, but initially answer "yes" or "no." Then we can go from there.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, J Town said:

Another Trump supporter reply - obfuscation. I asked the member two simple questions - hell, I'll ask you the same - and this member said s/he WOULD answer them if I provided some info, then refused. I demanded NOTHING, you put those words in my mouth.

 

Let's see if YOU have the sand to answer:

1) Do you acknowledge Trump called Ukraine and asked them to make a public announcement they were investigating the Bidens for corruption?

2) If so, do you find it acceptable that a U.S. president would have a foreign nation get involved in the 2020 election?

Answer these "yes" or "no." Expand as much as you want after, but initially answer "yes" or "no." Then we can go from there.

No or yes. I don't care I just don't want anybody like you involved in any further branches of my government. Enjoy Thailand, speak your mind, stay away. 

[Tounge Thaied]

13 minutes ago, J Town said:

You do so because you know facts won't back you up. I asked you two very simple question and you refuse to answer even after saying you WOULD if I provided you information. Disingenuous at the very least.

I CHOOSE not to answer your questions because all of the "Facts" have yet to be born out yet. A literal "Cop Out" is time for the "cops" the investigators to due their due diligence... it's called due process. Why would I ever attempt to answer those questions without having all of the facts? Hmm? Think about it. Here is what is going to happen. The House Judiciary committee will draft up articles of impeachment. The Dems will vote to impeach. Then the affair moves on to the Senate to by "tried" for what ever crime or misconduct has been alleged. During the Senate proceedings, more subpeonas will be issued, there will be more testimony. So any reasonable, rational, wise person cannot conclude anything until this process plays out. Final predication, the Republicans will never vote to remove the president, there will never be a 2/3 vote to remove this President. I can say that honestly and confidently, based upon what we already know. Final comment bro... take care. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Tounge Thaied
Spelling errors

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

No or yes. I don't care I just don't want anybody like you involved in any further branches of my government. Enjoy Thailand, speak your mind, stay away. 

And there is the crux of the biscuit. In a discussion, you respectfully listen to another's point of view, the both of you wanting to get to the truth. In an argument, you deny, ignore, lie etc with no interest in getting to the truth, you only want your point to get across. Neither of you will answer my questions because it goes to the core of the truth and truth doesn't support your point of view.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, J Town said:

And there is the crux of the biscuit. In a discussion, you respectfully listen to another's point of view, the both of you wanting to get to the truth. In an argument, you deny, ignore, lie etc with no interest in getting to the truth, you only want your point to get across. Neither of you will answer my questions because it goes to the core of the truth and truth doesn't support your point of view.

 

I have listened to your view. If you are happy in Thailand stay over there and don't interfere in my life here. 

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Tounge Thaied said:

I CHOOSE not to answer your questions because all of the "Facts" have yet to be born out yet. A literal "Cop Out" is time for the "cops" the investigators to due their due diligence... it's called due process. Why would I ever attempt to answer those questions without having all of the facts? Hmm? Think about it. Here is what is going to happen. The House Judiciary committee will draft up article so impeachment. The Dems will vote to impeach. Then the affair moves on to the Senate to by "tried" for what ever crime or misconduct has been alleged. During the Senate proceedings, more subpeonas will be issued, there will be more testimony. So any reasonable, rational, wise person cannot conclude anything until this process plays out. Final predication, the Republicans will never vote to remove the president, there will never be a 2/3 vote to remove this President. I can say that honestly and confidently, based upon what we already know. Final comment bro... take care. 

Hahaha - no. Read my comment above to CryingDick. Neither of you will answer two simple, basic questions because they expose truth and that doesn't support your perspective.

 

The answer to question one is simple - Trump already admitted he did it, so "yes." The REAL question is do you support a president asking a foreign country to get involved in the 2020 election?

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I have listened to your view. If you are happy in Thailand stay over there and don't interfere in my life here. 

Still no answer.

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

Still no answer.

Nor any intellectual discourse from the other side. 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, J Town said:

And there is the crux of the biscuit. In a discussion, you respectfully listen to another's point of view, the both of you wanting to get to the truth. In an argument, you deny, ignore, lie etc with no interest in getting to the truth, you only want your point to get across. Neither of you will answer my questions because it goes to the core of the truth and truth doesn't support your point of view.

In a nutshell, they dont care. Not interested in facts. They dont want anyone testifying that knows the facts. They dont care if any country gets involved. They dont care if the president acts against the nations best interest.

 

unless its a democrat, then with absolutely nothing to go on they claim them guilty. The facts have been pointed out time and time again yet they hang on to conspiracy theories.

 

its like arguing with a flat earther, you can provide all the evidence but they simply will not believe.

 

Republicans in office love them, they can say or do anything yet trump supporters blindly follow.