Must Read In historic moment, U.S. House impeaches Donald Trump for abuse of power

[mogandave]

30 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you understand the difference between Pelosi controlling the timing of events and Trump using the courts to control the timing of events?

Yes, apparently once the impeachment is complete, Nancy arguably has no Constitutional control over the timing. 
 

Trump in the other hand is within his Constitutional right to use Executive Privilege. 
 

What did I win? 
 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

Yes, apparently once the impeachment is complete, Nancy arguably has no Constitutional control over the timing. 
 

Trump in the other hand is within his Constitutional right to use Executive Privilege. 
 

What did I win? 
 

 

Nothing.  The Constitution provides little information on impeachment guidelines so there is a lot of winging it.  Your use of "apparently" and "arguably" illustrates the uncertainty.

 

The Constitution doesn't mention "Executive Privilege" at all, so calling it a Constitutional right is a major stretch.

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

Trump in the other hand is within his Constitutional right to use Executive Privilege. 

Wrong. 
Raoul Berger, the conservative legal historian and scholar, wrote in 1974, the impeachment power “constitutes a deliberate breach in the doctrine of separation of powers, so that no arguments drawn from that doctrine (such as executive privilege) may apply to the preliminary inquiry by the House or the subsequent trial by the Senate.”

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Nothing.  The Constitution provides little information on impeachment guidelines so there is a lot of winging it.  Your use of "apparently" and "arguably" illustrates the uncertainty.

 

The Constitution doesn't mention "Executive Privilege" at all, so calling it a Constitutional right is a major stretch.

Sorry. I’ll rephrase: 

 

Trump on the other hand has the right under the law to use Executive Privilege, and the House has the right to challenge it. 

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Wrong. 
Raoul Berger, the conservative legal historian and scholar, wrote in 1974, the impeachment power “constitutes a deliberate breach in the doctrine of separation of powers, so that no arguments drawn from that doctrine (such as executive privilege) may apply to the preliminary inquiry by the House or the subsequent trial by the Senate.”

It didn’t stop Clinton from using it when he was impeached.

[Eric Loh]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It didn’t stop Clinton from using it when he was impeached.

Keep this honest. Clinton and Nixon tried to obstruct the senate trial by claiming executive privileges and both of them were admonished by the courts in an unanimous court decision. Trump will be stupid to try this but he will because he don’t look at precedents nor take advise, 

[mogandave]

17 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Keep this honest. Clinton and Nixon tried to obstruct the senate trial by claiming executive privileges and both of them were admonished by the courts in an unanimous court decision. Trump will be stupid to try this but he will because he don’t look at precedents nor take advise, 

So Clinton only tried to use his EP in the trial, and not during the impeachment? 
 

Trump would not need to use it in the Senate as they likely won’t get called unless he wants them called, or unless something new comes up if it drags on until after the election and the dems hold the house, take the Senate and Trump’s re-elected.

 

Could Roberts compel them to be called? I would guess not.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So Clinton only tried to use his EP in the trial, and not during the impeachment? 
 

Trump would not need to use it in the Senate as they likely won’t get called unless he wants them called, or unless something new comes up if it drags on until after the election and the dems hold the house, take the Senate and Trump’s re-elected.

 

Could Roberts compel them to be called? I would guess not.

Roberts wont get involved much. He may interject for questions not on point but thats all. Its up to the senate to decide who to call.

 

Trump also has no say. Moscow mitch is in control. If 51 senators say yes or no then thats basically it.

 

But mitch is more concerned with keeping control of senate seats. Hes not dumb. Trump wants witneses but if his are called then dem witnesses may be called. Its a fine line.

 

Mitch wants no witnesses because its safe. Trump wants witnesses because he is a tv entertainer.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Roberts wont get involved much. He may interject for questions not on point but thats all. Its up to the senate to decide who to call.

 

Trump also has no say. Moscow mitch is in control. If 51 senators say yes or no then thats basically it.

 

But mitch is more concerned with keeping control of senate seats. Hes not dumb. Trump wants witneses but if his are called then dem witnesses may be called. Its a fine line.

 

Mitch wants no witnesses because its safe. Trump wants witnesses because he is a tv entertainer.

It could be they actually want the witnesses the left is squealing for to testify and they are going to bait-and-switch...

 

If they call the people Trump has denied, the can call anyone they want, and they can control the dialog and the questions. 
 

Everyone can be made to look bad (or good) with only one side asking questions. 
 

Half the public would love it...

[candide]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Everyone can be made to look bad (or good) with only one side asking questions.

Apparently there are some rules to follow.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf

Moreover, I doubt that Roberts would allow it.

[yourauntbob]

On 12/21/2019 at 10:49 PM, heybruce said:

The evidence is the qualified transcript of the phone call that Trump released, along with the sworn testimony of several people who witnessed the set up to the crime.  That fact that Trump refuses to release the actual recording of the call or to allow people who witnessed events first hand to testify confirms things are at least as bad as they appear.  Trump was clearly holding up military aid until President Zelinsky not only agreed to two nonsense investigations that would benefit Trump and Russia, but publicly announce the BS investigations.

 

Trump supporters either pretend they can't see what is in front of them, or insist that it is entirely appropriate that the only time Trump showed an interest in "corruption" was when it was actually conspiracy theories that would hurt a political rival and confuse the issue of Russia's crimes.  You can lead a Trump supporter to the obvious, but you can't make him acknowledge it.

This may have been addressed in other posts, but the transcript exonerated Trump.  At no point did he tie the aid to an investigation.  CNN/MSNBC and others have edited/distorted the original transcript to show as much, but the actual transcript had nothing of this nature.

 

That being said, lets say Trump DID tie an investigation into the Biden's in exchange for the aid.  Why is that bad?  Are you saying that a corrupt politician cant be investigated if he is running for president?  So if it turns out that Pence's family member was getting favors from another government which may have swayed him on policy, that a Warren/Biden/whomever presidency shouldn't be allowed to look into it?

[mogandave]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

Apparently there are some rules to follow.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf

Moreover, I doubt that Roberts would allow it.

Are those not just Senate  rules? If so, what’s stopping the Senate from updating them how they see fit?

 

While Roberts presides, he would (I think) have to preside in accordance with the Senate rules.

[yourauntbob]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:57 AM, Sujo said:

Yes and you admitted it again. That you think its ok is not relevant. The constitution does not allow it.

Where?  Where in the constitution is this not allowed?  

 

You know what is actually not allowed?  Foreign aid.  

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

 

Nothing about donating money to foreign governments  

 

[yourauntbob]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:04 AM, candide said:

If I remember well, Sondland and Taylor.

Page 4 of Sondland's testimony explicitly states he "assumed", during questioning he again explicitly stated he never received any orders from "anybody on the planet" to tie the aid to an investigation.  

 

so you remember wrong

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, yourauntbob said:

This may have been addressed in other posts, but the transcript exonerated Trump.  At no point did he tie the aid to an investigation.  CNN/MSNBC and others have edited/distorted the original transcript to show as much, but the actual transcript had nothing of this nature.

 

That being said, lets say Trump DID tie an investigation into the Biden's in exchange for the aid.  Why is that bad?  Are you saying that a corrupt politician cant be investigated if he is running for president?  So if it turns out that Pence's family member was getting favors from another government which may have swayed him on policy, that a Warren/Biden/whomever presidency shouldn't be allowed to look into it?

Oh dear. Another trump supporter that cannot read.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

It could be they actually want the witnesses the left is squealing for to testify and they are going to bait-and-switch...

 

If they call the people Trump has denied, the can call anyone they want, and they can control the dialog and the questions. 
 

Everyone can be made to look bad (or good) with only one side asking questions. 
 

Half the public would love it...

Call witnesses that know things pertaining to the trial. It aint rocket science.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, yourauntbob said:

Where?  Where in the constitution is this not allowed?  

 

You know what is actually not allowed?  Foreign aid.  

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

 

Nothing about donating money to foreign governments  

 

Who said anything about donating money.

 

My gawd some trump supporters really dont know what this is about.

 

Im not going to waist my time explaining again the facts. Look them up yourself.

 

But i think with what you have posted you do not have any understanding or a want to know facts.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, yourauntbob said:

This may have been addressed in other posts, but the transcript exonerated Trump.  At no point did he tie the aid to an investigation.  CNN/MSNBC and others have edited/distorted the original transcript to show as much, but the actual transcript had nothing of this nature.

 

That being said, lets say Trump DID tie an investigation into the Biden's in exchange for the aid.  Why is that bad?  Are you saying that a corrupt politician cant be investigated if he is running for president?  So if it turns out that Pence's family member was getting favors from another government which may have swayed him on policy, that a Warren/Biden/whomever presidency shouldn't be allowed to look into it?

You're correct, this has been addressed in other posts.  "do us a favor, though" is as clear as "an offer he can't refuse" and "sleep with the fishes" in its meaning.

 

Also addressed; the US President can't ask a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen.  As far as corruption, Trump has shown no interest until he invented a corruption investigation that would benefit him politically.  You've also completely ignored his request for an investigation into the BS DNC server conspiracy, and his insistence that these investigations be publicly announced. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by heybruce

[Cryingdick]

45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Oh dear. Another trump supporter that cannot read.

Oh dear. Another liberal with nothing to add. Two can play at that game.

[candide]

2 hours ago, yourauntbob said:

Page 4 of Sondland's testimony explicitly states he "assumed", during questioning he again explicitly stated he never received any orders from "anybody on the planet" to tie the aid to an investigation.  

 

so you remember wrong

Who's wrong?

"Mr Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelenskiy,” Sondland said. “Mr Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/20/trump-impeachment-hearings-gordon-sondland-testimony

Uncontradicted under oath

 

Anyway, I am sure that if Giuliani testifies, he will clear your alledged misunderstanding, right?

[candide]

2 hours ago, yourauntbob said:

This may have been addressed in other posts, but the transcript exonerated Trump.  At no point did he tie the aid to an investigation.  CNN/MSNBC and others have edited/distorted the original transcript to show as much, but the actual transcript had nothing of this nature.

 

That being said, lets say Trump DID tie an investigation into the Biden's in exchange for the aid.  Why is that bad?  Are you saying that a corrupt politician cant be investigated if he is running for president?  So if it turns out that Pence's family member was getting favors from another government which may have swayed him on policy, that a Warren/Biden/whomever presidency shouldn't be allowed to look into it?

Point 1: The (redacted) transcript does not contradicts the fact that pressure has been exerted before and after the call. Trump is not exonerated at all.

 

Point 2: it has been explained at least 100 times already. If Trump wants to investigate Biden, he just needs to ask the DOJ. Why is it that Trump and the Republicans always want to put Biden on show (at TV, in the Senate), and never want to open an official investigation?

 

You can go back to your alternate universe now.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

...

You can go back to your alternate universe now.

 

 

 

 

 

No worries about that!

[yourauntbob]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Who said anything about donating money.

 

My gawd some trump supporters really dont know what this is about.

 

Im not going to waist my time explaining again the facts. Look them up yourself.

 

But i think with what you have posted you do not have any understanding or a want to know facts.

Foreign aid is money that one country voluntarily transfers to another, which can take the form of a gift, a grant or a loan. In the United States, the term usually refers only to military and economic assistance the federal government provides to other governments - investopedia

 

I understand exactly what this is about. -  Orange man bad, 

 

I post a quote from the constitution and therefore "do not have any understanding or a want to know facts." ?  What i just posted was a fact.

 

Fact is, democrats are sad Trump won, they have been trying to impeach him since before he took office.  For being such defenders of the constitution, they violate it every day.

[yourauntbob]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

Point 1: The (redacted) transcript does not contradicts the fact that pressure has been exerted before and after the call. Trump is not exonerated at all.

 

Point 2: it has been explained at least 100 times already. If Trump wants to investigate Biden, he just needs to ask the DOJ. Why is it that Trump and the Republicans always want to put Biden on show (at TV, in the Senate), and never want to open an official investigation?

 

You can go back to your alternate universe now.

 

 

 

 

 

point 1 - what pressure?  the funds were released with an investigation even taking place.  and that all transpired prior to this whole hoax.  Even the Ukrainian government didnt think the aid was tied to the investigation.  It his was quid pro quo then its the worst execution of it in the history of quid pro quo.  

 

point 2: - so trump cant ask for assistance from a foreign government?  they would be in a much better place to gather the information.  id be all for an official investigation as well.

 

 

[candide]

15 minutes ago, yourauntbob said:

point 1 - what pressure?  the funds were released with an investigation even taking place.  and that all transpired prior to this whole hoax.  Even the Ukrainian government didnt think the aid was tied to the investigation.  It his was quid pro quo then its the worst execution of it in the history of quid pro quo.  

 

point 2: - so trump cant ask for assistance from a foreign government?  they would be in a much better place to gather the information.  id be all for an official investigation as well.

 

 

1. Testimonies showed they were aware of it. You may chose not to believe testimonies under oath, up to you.

 

2. He can ask if there is an official investigation. Anyway, that was not his goal, he wanted a public annoucement to discredit Biden. On top of it, his claims are ridiculous debunked conspiracy theories.

 

[yourauntbob]

1 hour ago, candide said:

1. Testimonies showed they were aware of it. You may chose not to believe testimonies under oath, up to you.

 

2. He can ask if there is an official investigation. Anyway, that was not his goal, he wanted a public annoucement to discredit Biden. On top of it, his claims are ridiculous debunked conspiracy theories.

 

Testimonies said that they heard a guy that knew another guy who believed it to be true.  Any "i did not have sexual relations with that woman" was under oath.  So was the head of the NSA stating they are not gathering data on phone calls.  Many lies have been told under oath.

 

Unless i missed something, he never asked for a public announcement.  And why would he want to discredit him BEFORE the nomination?  If this was truly strictly political, then why not wait until Biden received the nomination and then it would be too late for the democrats to nominate someone else.  

 

Point is, this whole process has been partisan on both sides.  A giant dog and pony show.  The elite has us arguing back and forth on who knew what and when they knew it instead of focusing on:

 

Re-authorization of the patriot act - which i will note again, the democrats had no problem re-issuing Trump this over reaching power

Two spending bills for 1.4 TRILLION dollars - again, authorized by democrats with a large percentage goes to the military which is controlled by Hitler Trump

The UN report stating that Assad gassing his people was faked

USA arming Saudis to massacre women and children in Yemen 

 

And the litany of other truly impeachable offenses.  Why cant we all focus on that?

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[simple1]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

If they call the people Trump has denied, the can call anyone they want, and they can control the dialog and the questions. 

Isn't this issue one of the articles for impeachment i.e. obstruction. trump is his own worst enemy.

Edited December 24, 2019 by simple1

[TopDeadSenter]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Isn't this issue one of the articles for impeachment

No. The issues for this impeachment fiasco are 1)no crime took place. 2) there is no victim of the said non existent crime. 3)no evidence exists other than hurt feelings and presumptive assumptions by civil servants. 4)the urgency to remove the dire threat to America has suddenly disappeared now Nancy passed her bonkers articles. 5) the real quid pro quo'er and his dodgy son are still free and one is even campaigning to be the next POTUS. 6)The democrats made no effort to hold impartial hearings in the house 7) Trump is impossible to kick out since he succeeded on all promises he made, best President ever and we need a 2nd term at least. 

 

[simple1]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No. The issues for this impeachment fiasco are 1)no crime took place. 2) there is no victim of the said non existent crime. 3)no evidence exists other than hurt feelings and presumptive assumptions by civil servants. 4)the urgency to remove the dire threat to America has suddenly disappeared now Nancy passed her bonkers articles. 5) the real quid pro quo'er and his dodgy son are still free and one is even campaigning to be the next POTUS. 6)The democrats made no effort to hold impartial hearings in the house 7) Trump is impossible to kick out since he succeeded on all promises he made, best President ever and we need a 2nd term at least. 

 

Echo chamber of trump lies and misinformation