Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

[candide]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You can't shamelessly make up words as you go along.....we have all read the transcript....nowhere is there any request to discredit. manufacture dirt.....did you go to the Adam Schiff school of reading?

That was testified under oath and never contradicted under oath by anyone.

Anyway, still no quote from the constitution supporting your claim that Trump was allowed to do what he did (whatever you characterise what he did)?

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Do you understand that he is asking you.

 

The senate will figure this out....they are paid to analyse these things far 

deeply and thoroughly than you or I or he (all biased parties) obviously can.

 

Read this article again, to see what the Dems are required to do.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/06/trump-ukraine-investigate-rival-229341

[J Town]

15 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You can't shamelessly make up words as you go along.....we have all read the transcript....nowhere is there any request to discredit. manufacture dirt.....did you go to the Adam Schiff school of reading?

I'm trying to stay out of this <deleted> - it's mostly a waste of time, everyone arguing, nobody discussing - but this is too much. Many witnesses, some of them first hand in on the phone conversation, have said Trump asked the president of Ukraine to say he was starting an investigation on the Bindens' corruption. No actual investigation, just say they were to throw shade on his political rival. This timeline reveals it wasn't just the phone call, this had been going on for quite some time. Why does this need to be explained again and again?
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

That was testified under oath and never contradicted under oath by anyone.

Anyway, still no quote from the constitution supporting your claim that Trump was allowed to do what he did (whatever you characterise what he did)?

 

None of those "witnesses" are fact witnesses....all they offer is their own opinion, 

bias, superhuman hearing powers and hearsay. 

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I can assure you I am VERY familiar how it works but it does not usually involve an ex officer booted out of the service for cocaine, who's Dad happens to be the VP, doesn't speak the language and adds NOTHING to any board. If this is 'beyond you' then you obviously join many others with selective judgement due to political bias.

I will concede that cocaine use is not usually in the CV of someone who has a high-powered role, but in the other examples I quoted, the ex-Prime Minister of NZ (whom I know on a personal basis) couldn't speak a word of Chinese, and Sarah Jessica Parker knows very little, if anything, about vineyard management.

 

Also, when new ministers are appointed after an election, do you really think that the Minister of Transport has an in-depth knowledge of transport, for example, and the list could go on but I think I've made my point.

 

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

All irrelevant.

 

but while youre at it, care to tell us the credentials of ivanka and jared?

Excellent observation Sujo!! Well done.

[candide]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

None of those "witnesses" are fact witnesses....all they offer is their own opinion, 

bias, superhuman hearing powers and hearsay. 

Then why didn't Trump send witnesses to contradict them?

 

And still no quote from the article you claimed was allowing Trump to do what he did. Because there isn't anything in this article that supports your allegation.

[Sujo]

45 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

None of those "witnesses" are fact witnesses....all they offer is their own opinion, 

bias, superhuman hearing powers and hearsay. 

Yes they were. Holmes heard it.

 

If you really want to complain of non fact witnesses then blame trump for not allowing it.

 

But dont go asking for bidens, schiff or whistleblower to testify as they too, are not fact witnesses.

[JHolmesJr]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Then why didn't Trump send witnesses to contradict them?

 

And still no quote from the article you claimed was allowing Trump to do what he did. Because there isn't anything in this article that supports your allegation.

 

You will have to ask Trump....personally I wouldn't subject myself to such BS either.

 

It's sad when you are looking for a law that states...the president is allowed to blah blah blah...

 

What is clear is that the path to impeach him on hearsay is not so simple. The person he is enquiring

about seems mired neck deep in actions that reek of all sorts of wrong...at leat that is a view held by many Americans.

Edited December 7, 2019 by JHolmesJr

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It is true that those answers have 'nothing there' so thank you for that honesty. Roll on the circus, FISA and the rest the Dems time is-a-comin.

 

PS you need to look up the role of Justice Roberts

Do you know how senate trial work.

 

Both sides of senate agrees to how its run. What witnesses etc.

 

Now lets say repubs want bidens. Dems refuse. Senate votes. Repubs can get 51 to pass it easy. But theres a catch. It does not just mean for that witness.

 

So Bidens, schiff, whistleblower didnt give evidence in congress, but neither did mulvaney, bolton, giuliano. And as repubs voted to allow those that didnt testify before, drms will have that lot in to testify.

 

So they would want to be very careful that its worth calling bidens against the damage dems could do with theirs.

 

My opinion would be only witnesses that went brfore congress will be called. 

[candide]

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You will have to ask Trump....personally I wouldn't subject myself to such BS either.

 

It's sad when you are looking for a law that states...the president is allowed to blah blah blah...

 

What is clear is that the path to impeach him on hearsay is not so simple. The person he is enquiring

about seems mired neck deep in actions that reek of all sorts of wrong...at leat that is a view held by many Americans.

So it confirms you made an unsubstantiated claim.

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

My opinion would be only witnesses that went brfore congress will be called. 

No problem...them + Bidens.

 

The whole world needs to se the veil stripped from this holier than thou swamp dweller and his

son.

[JHolmesJr]

50 minutes ago, candide said:

And still no quote from the article you claimed was allowing Trump to do what he did. Because there isn't anything in this article that supports your allegation.

 

is English your native language....are logic and comprehension your constant companions?

please produce a quote from me where I said there's an article that permits

trump to do what he did. There's an article that clearly says that under certain circumstances

a US president can ask a foreign government to look into incidents involving corruption....even 

if they involve a so called political rival. 

 

There's no need to lie  just to win a stupid argument on an anonymous forum.

[candide]

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

is English your native language....are logic and comprehension your constant companions?

please produce a quote from me where I said there's an article that permits

trump to do what he did. There's an article that clearly says that under certain circumstances

a US president can ask a foreign government to look into incidents involving corruption....even 

if they involve a so called political rival. 

 

There's no need to lie  just to win a stupid argument on an anonymous forum.

Please quote what the article exactly says, not what you think it says.

Edited December 7, 2019 by candide

[Sujo]

11 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

No problem...them + Bidens.

 

The whole world needs to se the veil stripped from this holier than thou swamp dweller and his

son.

No that cannot be. Its either old witnesses only or everyone.

 

You complain do much about non fsct witnesses. What facts can the bidens give?

 

If bidens are so bad im sure barr will find it. But this hearing is not about them.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

Please quote what the article exactly says, not what you think it says.

I think a pres csn ask foreign govt when something like an imminent threat is there.

 

But there is no such defence for trump. Even repubs have fallen off that horse. All they do now is attack the process.

 

Thats what everyone does ehen there is no defence, attack the process. Its sad when they get 5 limited mins to question and they dont do it. They just rant.

 

Perhaps they should do their job and find the truth. Perhaps trump should stop complaining and provide the witnesses that clear him. Then it would not be wasting time.

 

Trump can only blame himself. It could have been over before it started.

[JHolmesJr]

22 minutes ago, candide said:

Please quote what the article exactly says, not what you think it says.

 

I'll take that under advisement...lol.

 

[J Town]

15 hours ago, Sujo said:

Perhaps they should do their job and find the truth. Perhaps trump should stop complaining and provide the witnesses that clear him. Then it would not be wasting time.

Republican senators who will be jurors are gathering to discuss options, one of which is to censure instead of removal as they're finally starting to admit they can't lie their way out of THIS one.

[RideJocky]

43 minutes ago, J Town said:

Republican senators who will be jurors are gathering to discuss options, one of which is to censure instead of removal as they're finally starting to admit they can't lie their way out of THIS one.

 

I think Republicans are looking at the Senate trial as election windfall.

[J Town]

16 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

I think Republicans are looking at the Senate trial as election windfall.

No. They are ALL nervous as to how the pieces will fall. Far too many Republican senators admit at cocktail parties what an insane (deleted) this fool is, and they're far too worried about getting re-elected in 2020 and ignoring the truth. A majority of Americans want Trump impeached AND removed.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

think a pres csn ask foreign govt when something like an imminent threat is there.

We can all guess what the 'imminent threat' is! Eh eh!

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, J Town said:

No. They are ALL nervous as to how the pieces will fall. Far too many Republican senators admit at cocktail parties what an insane (deleted) this fool is, and they're far too worried about getting re-elected in 2020 and ignoring the truth. A majority of Americans want Trump impeached AND removed.

Yes, I’m sure you spend a lot of time rubbing elbows with Republican Senators at cocktail parties...

 

I don’t believe a majority do, but that shouldn’t matter. 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, I’m sure you spend a lot of time rubbing elbows with Republican Senators at cocktail parties...

 

I don’t believe a majority do, but that shouldn’t matter. 

Actually i am in contact with a few, not many. But yes, privately they hate trump but love their position. 

 

Its a prid qui pro at the balancing monent.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Actually i am in contact with a few, not many. But yes, privately they hate trump but love their position. 

 

Its a prid qui pro at the balancing monent.

Which ones hate Trump? 

[JCauto]

19 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

good....we'll let the senate decide that.

Well, yeah, but that wasn't what I asked. I guess you'd rather avoid a substantive discussion about the consequences of these actions. Pity.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

Well, yeah, but that wasn't what I asked. I guess you'd rather avoid a substantive discussion about the consequences of these actions. Pity.

Yes thats the point. They will not and cannot argue on point. Thats why they deflect to irrelevant things such as biden.

 

of course they hold biden to a much lower proof threshold to trump.

[rabas]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes thats the point. They will not and cannot argue on point. Thats why they deflect to irrelevant things such as biden.

 

of course they hold biden to a much lower proof threshold to trump.

Lol. If Biden is irrelevant to discussion about investigating Biden is all you have then we know who'll be elected in 2020. 

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by rabas

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

Lol. If Biden is irrelevant to discussion about investigating Biden is all you have then we know who'll be elected in 2020. 

 

No, biden is irrelevant to what trump is accused of doing. What evidence can biden give relating to this investigation?

 

i kind of understand how trump got elected. There are lots of his supporters that, despite having facts told to them, continue to spout alternative facts.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Sujo

[rabas]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

Lol. If Biden is irrelevant to discussion about investigating Biden is all you have then we know who'll be elected in 2020.

No, biden is irrelevant to what trump is accused of doing.

You mean Trump did not discuss investigating Biden and is therefore completely innocent!

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

You mean Trump did not discuss investigating Biden and is therefore completely innocent!

He did not dicuss it WITH biden. So biden has no evidence to assist the hearing.

 

is english your first language? I thought i was clear in my post.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Sujo

[candide]

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Well, yeah, but that wasn't what I asked. I guess you'd rather avoid a substantive discussion about the consequences of these actions. Pity.

The usual m.o.