mcmoustache wrote: » Was he investigated or indicted when I wasn't looking? I had a look on the google and couldn't find any records. Perhaps you could back up your assertion?
cnocbui wrote: » I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.
notobtuse wrote: » I take it that will probably be the Democrats next reason as the basis of impeachment since all their other reasons have fallen apart in this witch-hunt.
notobtuse wrote: » Apparently Bidens and Criminal Activity seem to be synonymous.
cnocbui wrote: » Nothing on the impeachment table is going to hold a candle to this:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/the-mystery-of-the-trump-chaos-trades?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=vanity-fair&utm_social-type=earnedhttps://twitter.com/WilliamCohan/status/1184593056428941312 I have thought for over a year that Trump was using the presidency as a business venture for personal gain. I hope there are some investigative journalists who can ferret out the details.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1179783410820292608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ffec-chair-ellen-weintraub-foreign-interference-trump_n_5d961996e4b0da7f66231326
There Is Definite Hanky-Panky Going On”: The Fantastically Profitable Mystery of the Trump Chaos Trades
mad muffin wrote: » Bad faith? Like Schiff pressuring the witness’s to get them to corroborate his narrative? Talk about… “it takes some serious twisting of reality to incriminate Trump.” His own hubris got him entangled in the Democrats web of lies and deceit. He should have purged all Obama holdovers when he took office and gotten someone trusted who knew how to navigate the swamp to hire untainted staff.
notobtuse wrote: » Yes the House has the sole power of impeachment but the House is made up of two primary parties... not one! Are Republicans allowed to call witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? Are Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses like the Democrats do in the current inquiry? I think a picture might have leaked out of one of the Republicans allowed to sit in on the inquiry.
mcmoustache wrote: » He didn't ask them to investigate criminal activity though. He asked them to investigate Biden. It's right there in the transcript notes.
notobtuse wrote: » Not personal help... help in investigating what appears to be criminal activity. There's a big difference.
mcmoustache wrote: » He asked a foreign government for help investigating a political rival and only a political rival. That has been confirmed by the FEC as illegal. That's what kicked off the investigations.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P Look, you made the following assertion: In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations. The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » 30 seconds before asking China to investigate the Bidens (plural!) he said the USA has tremendous power when dealing with China on trade issues. Very clear threat followed by request for personal help. Clearly illegal, and all on camera.
mcmoustache wrote: » No. You're confusing a wish with reality. The house has the sole power of impeachment, as far as the constitution goes. From This means that the house has the sole power. What this means is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. In other words, the house has the sole power of impeachment. Not shared power or power according to the wishes of the President. Instead, the house has the sole power of impeachment. If the house didn't have the sole power of impeachment, I suspect that the constitution would have mentioned it.
Matt Barrett wrote: » He asked the Ukraine, (later China and previously Russia) to look into a political rival. The only thing up for debate is if he was offering something in return.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P Look, you made the following assertion: In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations.The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.
mcmoustache wrote: » You can overly complicate this all you like but all that it demonstrates is that it takes some serious twisting of reality to vindicate Trump.
mcmoustache wrote: » the notes of the phonecall corroborate the whistleblower's complaint .. that's not a witch hunt or a difference of opinion. It's a fact.
Overheal wrote: » So there are no republicans on those committees? News to me
notobtuse wrote: » Doesn't this happen only after a full House floor vote is taken and approved to officially initiate an impeachment inquiry/investigation?
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5 US Constitution wrote: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
notobtuse wrote: » Under the US Constitution’s 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, there’s a presumption of innocence. Under our laws prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Once it has been determined a crime was actually committed then there is an investigation to find the identity of the perpetrator. Once that has occurred then the job is to collect evidence to prove his or her guilt. The Democratic House inquiry is following the Beria model of the Stalin regime, not the US Constitution model.
notobtuse wrote: » What good is a transcript when you totally control the process and run a one-sided sham of an inquiry?
mcmoustache wrote: » You do realise that the Republicans get to question the witnesses too? Anyway, it's immaterial. These are the same house rules that were in use when Republicans controlled the house.
mcmoustache wrote: » I understand that you don't like the idea of Trump being impeached and you're entitled to believe what you like. It doesn't actually change the reality though. Trump got himself impeached when he asked a foreign power for electoral help. It could easily have been avoided by sticking to official channels and not doing the bad thing. One can scream blue murder about Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Robert Mueller or whoever. You can call the impeachment a witch-hunt or a dog or whatever you want but that's just an opinion that has little bearing on what's actually happening.
notobtuse wrote: » Of course there is something to investigate. When you adopt the Stalinistic tactic of “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” and embark on the criminalization of politics, how can you not find something, even if you have to make it up? First it was Russia collusion (which Hillary Clinton and the DNC did participate in to formulate the bogus Steele dossier that was used to deceive the FISA court into allowing the Obama administration to spy on Trump’s campaign). Then when that fell apart it was obstruction (which Hillary Clinton is guilty of by destroying over 30,000 of her emails while Secretary of State, after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee). There was no collusion so the House Democrats used the claim of quid pro quo as their new basis for impeachment (which Joe Biden had actually done by his own admission when he threatened to withhold taxpayer funds to Ukraine unless they fire an official). Now that Shiff has claimed there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo to continue the impeachment inquiry the new charge against Trump is using foreign entities to take down a political opponent (which again the Democrats did using operatives from England, Australia, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine to discredit the Trump campaign and after elected POTUS to attempt to remove him from office). What charges will the House Democrats invent next month? Or the month after that? To call what is going on at the hands of the House Democrats as a witch-hunt is an insult to witches.Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
mcmoustache wrote: » Just to confirm what I said earlier in the thread, the public will get the transcripts of the impeachment inquiry's witness testimony. Here's a portion of a letter from Schiff to colleagues.
