Trump at brink of impeachment as U.S. House committee approves charges

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

You blame the Dems, why?

The Republicans control the DOJ. Why is it that they are looking the other way and don't start any investigation into the Bidens?

huh....on the transcript Trump clearly told zelensky that Mr Barr will be in touch.

And it wasn't for cigars and poker I think.

[candide]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

huh....on the transcript Trump clearly told zelensky that Mr Barr will be in touch.

And it wasn't for cigars and poker I think.

So you don't believe your master? OK, I understand, he's a serial liar...????

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-justice/trump-says-he-has-not-asked-doj-to-investigate-bidens-son-idUSKBN1WQ2OV

Edited December 19, 2019 by candide

[JHolmesJr]

1 minute ago, candide said:

So you don't believe your master? OK, I understand, he's a serial liar...????

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-justice/trump-says-he-has-not-asked-doj-to-investigate-bidens-son-idUSKBN1WQ2OV

read the transcript...slowwwwwllllyyyy.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

read the transcript...slowwwwwllllyyyy.

One more?

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ukraine-prosecutor-general-barr-made-no-contact-to-request-joint-investigation-of-biden/

 

[HuskerDo]

On 12/17/2019 at 11:44 PM, heybruce said:

" But one person familiar with the strategy said “abuse of power” when it comes to Ukraine is the “big point that Pelosi has been hammering home” and the umbrella under which “this all fits to connect it and help the public understand.” "  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-democrats-zero-abuse-power-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1069431

"But one person familiar with the strategy said"...… ANOTHER unnamed individual. Must be related to the whistle blower. Why is it Dems are so afraid to name the names of those who are blowing so much smoke? 

 

Treason is a MAJOR crime and all Americans understand what it means. "Abuse of power" is something many Americans see in the management of the company where they work. The only reaction is causes is a shrug of the shoulders in most when they hear the phrase "abuse of power". IF, and I repeat IF, Pelosi truly believe Trump committed Treason it would have been an article of impeachment rather than a talking point. Not credible. 

[Becker]

15 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

We will see what they think when it gets down to brass tacks.  As I stated previously, Clinton rebounded nicely from his impeachment.  WJC’s people supported him in much the same way as your see the current CIC’s party rallying to support him.  Regarding your personal attacks on the US Pres. and general comments on Republican Party senators: adolescent prose doesn’t add much.

I was talking about the GOP as a party. Try reading my post again if that went over your head.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

"But one person familiar with the strategy said"...… ANOTHER unnamed individual. Must be related to the whistle blower. Why is it Dems are so afraid to name the names of those who are blowing so much smoke? 

 

Treason is a MAJOR crime and all Americans understand what it means. "Abuse of power" is something many Americans see in the management of the company where they work. The only reaction is causes is a shrug of the shoulders in most when they hear the phrase "abuse of power". IF, and I repeat IF, Pelosi truly believe Trump committed Treason it would have been an article of impeachment rather than a talking point. Not credible. 

When you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.  Right?

 

Help me out here; where do the Articles of Impeachment mention treason?

[RideJocky]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Hunter Biden did not work for a US company or a company that did business with the US.  Yet you want him investigated because his father was BP.

 

The Trump kids don't show any exceptional abilities, yet they are paid big bucks for speaking engagements.  Do you think the business dealings of the Trump and Kirchner families should also be investigated because Trump is President?

If “The Trump kids...” were making long money for speaking engagements  in a foreign language they don’t speak at events they do not have to attend for foreign companies bidding on government contracts Trump is involved with, absolutely. 
 

If they’re actually giving speeches at well attended functions sponsored by groups that support Trump, or at least don’t see him as the Antichrist, and who see having a member of the first family as an attraction, no. 
 

In the same but-but-but vein, does in not interest you how Bill and Hillary’s huge speaking fees dried up after the election? 
 

 

 

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

If “The Trump kids...” were making long money for speaking engagements  in a foreign language they don’t speak at events they do not have to attend for foreign companies bidding on government contracts Trump is involved with, absolutely. 
 

If they’re actually giving speeches at well attended functions sponsored by groups that support Trump, or at least don’t see him as the Antichrist, and who see having a member of the first family as an attraction, no. 
 

In the same but-but-but vein, does in not interest you how Bill and Hillary’s huge speaking fees dried up after the election? 
 

 

 

If you had the same dogmatic approach to get to the truth about trump, the subject of this thread, then someone may believe you.

 

But you dont.

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

If you had the same dogmatic approach to get to the truth about trump, the subject of this thread, then someone may believe you.

 

But you dont.

And if you weren’t alway making stuff up i might believe you. 

 

in any event, I don’t expect people like you to believe me. 

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, RideJocky said:

If “The Trump kids...” were making long money for speaking engagements  in a foreign language they don’t speak at events they do not have to attend for foreign companies bidding on government contracts Trump is involved with, absolutely. 
 

If they’re actually giving speeches at well attended functions sponsored by groups that support Trump, or at least don’t see him as the Antichrist, and who see having a member of the first family as an attraction, no. 
 

In the same but-but-but vein, does in not interest you how Bill and Hillary’s huge speaking fees dried up after the election?

Your first sentence makes no sense.  Burisma Holdings never did business in the US, or bid on US government contracts.  So the question remains, why are some people so upset that Hunter Biden worked for Burisma?

 

No, the Clinton's finances are of no concern to me.  They are no longer in government, and I am aware of no evidence they are doing anything illegal, so why should I care?

[HuskerDo]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

When you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.  Right?

 

Help me out here; where do the Articles of Impeachment mention treason?

They don't. That's my point. Pelosi came out and stated several times that Trump committed treason yet it isn't in the articles. It said after conferring with the Dems and their lawyers they decided not to include the charge even tho Pelosi insists Trump committed treason. If he did it should have been in the articles no?

 

"Help me out here"..... last time I do so. Try to keep up with the news instead of twisting the facts and making your own version of the news.

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

They don't. That's my point. Pelosi came out and stated several times that Trump committed treason yet it isn't in the articles. It said after conferring with the Dems and their lawyers they decided not to include the charge even tho Pelosi insists Trump committed treason. If he did it should have been in the articles no?

 

"Help me out here"..... last time I do so. Try to keep up with the news instead of twisting the facts and making your own version of the news.

Really?  Are you sure you have your facts straight?  When I did a search of "Nancy Pelosi Trump treason" I found many sources reporting on Trump accusing Pelosi of treason, but none the other way around.

[Kelsall]

And now it appears Trump hasn't even been impeached!  Get the popcorn.

 

 

"[Has Trump been impeached?]  A Harvard law professor, who also served as a Democrat-called impeachment witness, answered with a resounding “no” in a column that speaks to the deep dilemma House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces as she sits on two articles of impeachment against President Trump."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate

Edited December 20, 2019 by Kelsall

[mogandave]

As I understand it, a strong argument can be made that it is already before the Senate, and there is no need for it to be sent over.

 

Apparently Mitch McConnell can set a date and move ahead with it. 

[Kelsall]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

As I understand it, a strong argument can be made that it is already before the Senate, and there is no need for it to be sent over.

 

Apparently Mitch McConnell can set a date and move ahead with it. 

Yes and my point above is to illustrate that the whole thing is a cluster <deleted>.

[Cryingdick]

52 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Yes and my point above is to illustrate that the whole thing is a cluster <deleted>.

 

What??? You don't seem to understand that this is some of the greatest political maneuvering of all time from a master tactician like Pelosi???? ????

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

What??? You don't seem to understand that this is some of the greatest political maneuvering of all time from a master tactician like Pelosi???? ????

In all fairness to Nancy, she knows this is a goat **** from the get and got pushed into it. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

As I understand it, a strong argument can be made that it is already before the Senate, and there is no need for it to be sent over.

 

Apparently Mitch McConnell can set a date and move ahead with it. 

Argue all you like about it. Its not in the senate until it is formally presented. Moscow mitch can do what he likes but until it is formally presented its not a trial.

[mogandave]

34 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Argue all you like about it. Its not in the senate until it is formally presented. Moscow mitch can do what he likes but until it is formally presented its not a trial.

I’m not arguing, I’m just regurgitating a argument made by a constitutional “scholar”.  The claim is that per the wording in the Constitution, once the House impeached, it is before both the public and the Senate, and no further action by the House is required. 
 

Where does it say the House has to send it over? Not in the Constitution.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I’m not arguing, I’m just regurgitating a argument made by a constitutional “scholar”.  The claim is that per the wording in the Constitution, once the House impeached, it is before both the public and the Senate, and no further action by the House is required. 
 

Where does it say the House has to send it over? Not in the Constitution.

 

I wish we had clarification on the time frame the senate must act if sent. Surely if the house isn't obligated to send it, it would seem reasonable that the senate doesn't have to jump through hoops, if it isn't urgent.

[Sujo]

22 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I’m not arguing, I’m just regurgitating a argument made by a constitutional “scholar”.  The claim is that per the wording in the Constitution, once the House impeached, it is before both the public and the Senate, and no further action by the House is required. 
 

Where does it say the House has to send it over? Not in the Constitution.

No, you are only citing one scholar. And the constitution states congress has the sole say in impeachment. So he has been impeached.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No, you are only citing one scholar. And the constitution states congress has the sole say in impeachment. So he has been impeached.

 

Let Pelosi hang the articles on her mantle for Christmas. If the articles are not sent then I guess you could pardon the senate if they continue to confirm judges and just put it aside when it eventually arrives.

 

If Pelosi doesn't send it then I am not sure that the onus is upon the incumbent majority of the senate to take it seriously.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Let Pelosi hang the articles on her mantle for Christmas. If the articles are not sent then I guess you could pardon the senate if they continue to confirm judges and just put it aside when it eventually arrives.

 

If Pelosi doesn't send it then I am not sure that the onus is upon the incumbent majority of the senate to take it seriously.

That would be fine for the dems but trump would hate it. Going into election as impeached but not acquitted.

 

Lindsay Graham spoke to trump and said he was mad as hell about it. He wants to be acquitted and pelosi is playing him yet again.

[Sujo]

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I’m not arguing, I’m just regurgitating a argument made by a constitutional “scholar”.  The claim is that per the wording in the Constitution, once the House impeached, it is before both the public and the Senate, and no further action by the House is required. 
 

Where does it say the House has to send it over? Not in the Constitution.

Funny you quote a scholar for this. The same scholar who gave evidence that what trump did is impeachable.

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No, you are only citing one scholar. And the constitution states congress has the sole say in impeachment. So he has been impeached.

 

Who are what are you citing? 
 

You understand the Congress includes the Senate, yes? 
 

In any event, the impeachment is over. It’s up to the Senate now.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Funny you quote a scholar for this. The same scholar who gave evidence that what trump did is impeachable.

I quoted no one. Please don’t make things up. 
 

And no, it wasn’t the same scholar who provided their opinion that what Trump did was impeachable. This one (apparently) referred to the actual text a few times. 
 

Again, and to be clear, I’m not making this argument, but it does seem to make sense to me. 
 

 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

That would be fine for the dems but trump would hate it. Going into election as impeached but not acquitted.

 

Lindsay Graham spoke to trump and said he was mad as hell about it. He wants to be acquitted and pelosi is playing him yet again.

 

Either way the dems should prepare for an election. The debate act night was comical. Mayor Pete assassinated Warren.

 

Tom Steyer

 

a billionaire hedge fund manager, who's hedge fund allocates its attention to high net worth individuals

 

Warren was a corporate lawyer

 

Klobuchar is also a corporate lawyer

 

Bloomberg is synonymous with the stock market.

 

 

Buttigieg will never be worth more than $127,699.32 If he sold his house.

 

Biden remembered what state he was in for a change.

 

Warren looked hurt.

 

Yang was a refreshing breath of fresh air in an otherwise lackluster event.

 

Bernie... was/is

 

[mogandave]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Either way the dems should prepare for an election. The debate act night was comical. Mayor Pete assassinated Warren.

 

Tom Steyer

 

a billionaire hedge fund manager, who's hedge fund allocates its attention to high net worth individuals

 

Warren was a corporate lawyer

 

Klobuchar is also a corporate lawyer

 

Bloomberg is synonymous with the stock market.

 

 

Buttigieg will never be worth more than $127,699.32 If he sold his house.

 

Biden remembered what state he was in for a change.

 

Warren looked hurt.

 

Yang was a refreshing breath of fresh air in an otherwise lackluster event.

 

Bernie... was/is

 

Yeah, this had to be the funniest thing since Pamala Karlan’s impeachment testimony!

 

How about Biden on reparations?
 

Clearly the need to shut Yang up...

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by mogandave
Added Yang comment

[roobaa01]

very good news pelosi and her bunch getting cold feet to proceed with impeachment, thus imo the president is not impeached yet . imo no impeachment til articles being passed on to the senate.

 

wbr

roobaa01