4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Okay, but he did release the “not a transcript” which is a document, you said he didn’t release any documents, which makes you a——incorrect. 

 

There wasn’t a blanket ban, a lot of people testified.

 

But clearly the House had all the evidence they needed to prove the charges or:

1. The House would have taken Trump to court for more “documents” and witnesses 

 

or

 

2. The House would not have pseudo-impeached him

 

Next!

 

Wrong yet again. He released a 5 min summary of what people said they heard. Not the full 40 min transcript of what was actually said.

 

It was released to the public before congress started investigating. So he has produced zero of what congress requested.

 

There was a blanket ban. He specifically told people not to testify. Some went against that ban and testified. But it was still a blanket ban.

 

The house does not need to prove anything. The senate does. The house only says there are charges that warrant a trial.

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Wrong yet again. He released a 5 min summary of what people said they heard. Not the full 40 min transcript of what was actually said.

 

It was released to the public before congress started investigating. So he has produced zero of what congress requested.

 

There was a blanket ban. He specifically told people not to testify. Some went against that ban and testified. But it was still a blanket ban.

 

The house does not need to prove anything. The senate does. The house only says there are charges that warrant a trial.

A five minute summary is still a document, yes? You said he released no documents. You can pretend the not-a-transcript is a not-a-document as well, but again, it doesn’t make I so. 
 

Given your expert impeachment witness is wrong about what constitutes impeachment, I think it fair to say he was likely wrong when he said the phone call was an impeachable offense as well, 

55 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, people point out any number of things here, doesn’t make it so. 
 

Everyone here was  “frequently pointing out” how Trump was going to be impeached for campaign finance laws over a year ago. 
 

In any event, the House rules only control what the House does, they have nothing to do with the Senate. 
 

Your “impeachment expert”, the Harvard Law professor that testified in court that the phone call was an impeachable offense sides with me. 

I'm not sure what you mean - I don't have an "impeachment expert."

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows how the procedure works and here's what he's said about Pelosi holding onto the articles of impeachment:

 

Quote

MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): "Yeah. I mean, believe it or not, the papers have to be physically brought over to the Senate, and we can't go forward until the Speaker does that."

 

41 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I'm not sure what you mean - I don't have an "impeachment expert."

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows how the procedure works and here's what he's said about Pelosi holding onto the articles of impeachment:

 

 

 

Some people seem to be quibbling about the minutiae of the situation and not the bigger picture. However this plays out, gets sent to the senate, doesn't get sent, constitutes impeachment without being sent and all that doesn't matter.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/25/nancy-pelosi-has-no-leverage-on-impeachment-and-wi/

 

The end result is all the same Trump in an election against whoever the dems drag out.

 

Mitch knows the dems and the house have no say in the senate. "I'm not sure what leverage there is from refraining from sending us something we do not want."

 

Edited December 26, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

All of the things listed seem more like running damage control after the fact than some cunning plan. I love the one about Pelosi sending it to the senate right before the election. I guess if your candidate is in the senate at that time that would work out great. 

 

Thwarting Trump from claiming exoneration is another flawed one. Trump will say the evidence didn't even meet the bar of sending the articles. 

 

I don't see any stroke of pure genius in any of it.  Most of the theories are either damage control or hail Mary's praying that Trump slips up. To give another football analogy this is like Nancy doing an onside kick when the team is way behind in the fourth quarter. The ball (articles) has to be kicked off to the senate to have a chance to score. However releasing the ball is a very low probability play.  

 

This reeks of desperation. 

 

The mood in America now is incredible. This was a great Christmas season. People are enjoying their presents and drinking egg nog. Merry Christmas to one and all and God Bless.

From his tweets, Trump does not seem to share your serenity! ????

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/opinion/impeachment-trump-pelosi.html

51 minutes ago, candide said:

From his tweets, Trump does not seem to share your serenity! ????

????

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/26/trump-slams-pelosi-and-impeachment-in-a-flurry-of-christmas-tweets.html

10 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I'm not sure what you mean - I don't have an "impeachment expert."

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows how the procedure works and here's what he's said about Pelosi holding onto the articles of impeachment:

 

 

 

McConnell can play it anyway he wants. He can wait for Nancy if he thinks it’s in the best interest of the country,

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

That is not waiving rights because its only an investigation.. But it is giving another article of impeachment. ????

It WAS an investigation, and is supposed to be compete, not reopened in the Senate. 
 

The House had the chance to wait for any witness they wanted, they chose not to. 
 

Even you know the President is not required to do or provide whatever the House wants, yes?

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The House had the chance to wait for any witness they wanted, they chose not to. 

To be fair they were in a major hurry. Didn't they say the hurry was vital because Trump was such a dire threat that he couldn't be allowed to continue? Which makes the delay now another new angle of, and unseen level of ridiculousness. Restart the 1st term!

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Dems are still in a hurry to get the truth. What are repubs doing?

Getting on with their job of making Americans richer, safer and happier. Something they have made a great job doing, regardless of the immature distractions.

Edited December 27, 20196 yr by TopDeadSenter

Troll posts trolling about the transcripts not being released by Trump or the White House have been removed:

 

White House Releases Rough Transcript Of Trump's First Call With Zelenskiy

 

White House releases rough transcript of Trump's first Ukraine call

 

White House releases memo of Trump’s April call with Ukraine’s Zelenskiy

 

Rough Transcript of Trump’s First Phone Call With Ukrainian Leader Released

 

Trump releases transcript of April call with Ukraine's Zelenskiy

 

Transcript!!! - The White House

 

 

On 12/26/2019 at 3:33 PM, Sujo said:

No they havent. Others released some documents and witnesses where not stopped from testifying.

 

trump has issued a blanket ban on everything. Thats not executive privilege, thats obstruction.

So take it to SCOTUS, LOL.

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

To be fair they were in a major hurry. Didn't they say the hurry was vital because Trump was such a dire threat that he couldn't be allowed to continue? Which makes the delay now another new angle of, and unseen level of ridiculousness. Restart the 1st term!

If it was "vital", why did they not continue to sit over the recess.

Pack of hypocrites, IMO.

10 hours ago, candide said:

????

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/26/trump-slams-pelosi-and-impeachment-in-a-flurry-of-christmas-tweets.html

IMO he's pushing the hater's buttons and laughing at them melting down.

11 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/opinion/impeachment-trump-pelosi.html

Can you please post at least the headline of links.

I went on reluctantly, as the less cookies I pick up the better, but it's amazing that the NYT would publish anything as negative for the Dems as that.

At the end the clutching at straws for the presidential candidate was heartening. When even the NYT can't predict a Trump loss, it's pretty much in the bag for the Donald.

As they said, if he can keep his mouth shut for the next ten months it's Donald 2020 to 2024. At this stage it's his to lose.

 

On 12/26/2019 at 4:55 PM, simple1 said:

We fundamentally disagree. The items you consider to be trump's achievements I view as strategic errors of judgement i.e. withdrawal from Paris Agreement, Iranian deal and TPP. Politicising moving the US Justice system to conservative ideologues is wrong as trump did not gain the mandate by way of majority support from US votes. Reversing US legislation for protection of the environment. NAFTA 2.0 appears to be only marginally advantageous to the US whilst damaging relations with near neighbours and on and on - too may to mention...

Like you say, we fundamentally disagree. Paris agreement is dead anyway after the recent conference, Iranians were never going to abide by the deal, IMO, and the TPP needed to be executed as it was a revolting agreement.

If disagree with Trump electing judges to SCOTUS need a constitutional amendment to change it.

I'm all for protecting the environment, but like I said elsewhere, no politician ticks all the boxes. The Paris agreement protected nothing, in reality, IMO.

Mexico has been taking advantage of the US for ages and less said about Canada the better, IMO.

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can you please post at least the headline of links.

I went on reluctantly, as the less cookies I pick up the better, but it's amazing that the NYT would publish anything as negative for the Dems as that.

At the end the clutching at straws for the presidential candidate was heartening. When even the NYT can't predict a Trump loss, it's pretty much in the bag for the Donald.

As they said, if he can keep his mouth shut for the next ten months it's Donald 2020 to 2024. At this stage it's his to lose.

 

It was Romney’s to lose in ‘12 and Clinton’s to lose in ‘16...

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It was Romney’s to lose in ‘12 and Clinton’s to lose in ‘16...

Of course I recognise that something could happen before the election, but here's hoping it doesn't.

Romney had poor advisors and said stupid things. If it was the Donald it wouldn't matter, but Romney was such a sad sack, IMO, that he just couldn't get out of the trap.

Clinton- perhaps if she hadn't insulted half the country with her revolting remark she might have won, despite those awful pant suits.

Edited December 27, 20196 yr by thaibeachlovers

An inflammatory profane post has been removed. 

On 12/26/2019 at 1:17 PM, Sujo said:

No one stopped repubs calling witnesses to what trump is accused of doing.

Sujo, 

 

Obviously you are not informed.  Unless the Democratic Chairman approves the Republicans got nothing. 

In terms of Biden, yes his actions were clearly involved with Trumps request to look into corruption in Ukaraine.  As to your statement about witnesses not being germane, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was called by the Democrats to testify despite her not even being in the position when Trump telephoned the Ukranian President. 

18 minutes ago, metisdead said:

An inflammatory profane post has been removed. 

Sorry, I got carried away.

Well it looks like the whistleblower will be called as a witness.  Trump has outed him in a tweet.  Now we're getting down to business.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-retweets-article-which-names-alleged-whistleblower/

58 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sujo, 

 

Obviously you are not informed.  Unless the Democratic Chairman approves the Republicans got nothing. 

In terms of Biden, yes his actions were clearly involved with Trumps request to look into corruption in Ukaraine.  As to your statement about witnesses not being germane, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was called by the Democrats to testify despite her not even being in the position when Trump telephoned the Ukranian President. 

The House committees applied the rules voted by the Republicans in 2015, in order to make it easier to investigate the WH. They should blame themselves.

 

As stated by Sujo, all witnesses who could possibly have witnessed something related to the QPQ have been accepted, except the whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous (but agreed to accept written questions).

 

The QPQ-related events happened between around March/April 2019 to September 2019. This clearly qualifies Yovanovitch as a legitimate witness, and excludes Biden and others.

 

As far as I understand the Republican rationale, the idea was that Biden's testimony would have provided some kind of mitigating circumstances to explain Trump's behaviour. It's not in the scope an investigation to search for mitigating circumstances, i.e. to find out if the suspect has been beaten when he was a child.

 

The Republican complaints are again a good example of their obvious hypocrisy:

- complain about rules they have themselves voted

- try to storm into a room in which they were already present

- complain about not being allowed to call witnesses, while the only ones they called were (1) non-witnesses such as Biden or Chalupa, (2) the whitlerblower who wanted to remain anonymous. Oh, I forgot, as they were aware it did not look good, (3) they added a few true witnesses who had been already called by the Dems (so that they were unlikely to cause any additional damage).

 

 

Edited December 27, 20196 yr by candide

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

Well it looks like the whistleblower will be called as a witness.  Trump has outed him in a tweet.  Now we're getting down to business.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-retweets-article-which-names-alleged-whistleblower/

Why would that mean he will be called?

 

it is also not confirmed he is the wb, trump only retweeted.

49 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sujo, 

 

Obviously you are not informed.  Unless the Democratic Chairman approves the Republicans got nothing. 

In terms of Biden, yes his actions were clearly involved with Trumps request to look into corruption in Ukaraine.  As to your statement about witnesses not being germane, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was called by the Democrats to testify despite her not even being in the position when Trump telephoned the Ukranian President. 

If he wanted the bidens investigated all he had to do was ask the state dept, doj or fbi. But he did it the wrong way.

 

yovanovitch was directly involved. She was a known fighter of corruption and gave evidence that what giuliani was doing was against US policy, but for trumps personal gain policy.

 

So tell me what evidence the bidens could give relating to trump asking a foreign govt to investigate. 

16 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Well it looks like the whistleblower will be called as a witness.  Trump has outed him in a tweet.  Now we're getting down to business.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-retweets-article-which-names-alleged-whistleblower/

It confirms he does not think he has to respect laws.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

If he wanted the bidens investigated all he had to do was ask the state dept, doj or fbi. But he did it the wrong way.

 

yovanovitch was directly involved. She was a known fighter of corruption and gave evidence that what giuliani was doing was against US policy, but for trumps personal gain policy.

 

So tell me what evidence the bidens could give relating to trump asking a foreign govt to investigate. 

They tried bringing in a couple of Ukrainians to the USA to present documents  showing facts of corruption but these two particular ones were stymied by Yovanovitch and weren't issued visa's ! It's been widely reported along with all the corruption that was going on before Mr. Trump! IMOP It's no wonder the POTUS side stepped those channels !

 

 

Edited December 27, 20196 yr by riclag

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

They tried bringing in a couple of Ukrainians to the USA to present documents  showing facts of corruption but these two particular ones were stymied by Yovanovitch and weren't issued visa's ! It's been widely reported along with all the corruption that was going on before Mr. Trump!It's no wonder the POTUS side stepped those channels!

 

 

Who are "they", and who are these Ukrainians? 

Edited December 27, 20196 yr by candide

1 hour ago, candide said:

It confirms he does not think he has to respect laws.

Maybe and maybe not. It's been reported by other people ! Anyway maybe Nancy will move this on as a result of his retweet. Everybody dying to know what political ties he or she has IMOP