notobtuse wrote: » Wrong. Courts would have fast tracked it and rendered a decision.
notobtuse wrote: » Here you go...https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house"we think it....possible"
Boggles wrote: » :pac:
notobtuse wrote: » probable even Precedent was set in US v. Nixon How did I know when you asked for something… 'anything,' you would twist it around. Boy did I call it. You remind me of Adam Shiff.
Boggles wrote: » Great opening, remind ye of anyone?
Sean.3516 wrote: » He might feel more comfortable about it if Republicans had been allowed by the Dems to call their own witnesses.
mcmoustache wrote: » The republicans got witnesses. Off the top of my head, Turly was a republican witness and he wasn't the only one.
Now, I understand that Hunter Biden didn't get called but he witnessed about as much of the "drug-deal" as I did - in other words, not a witness.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » This is false and has been pointed out to you multiple times on other parts of boards. The Republicans were not allowed to call ANY witnesses of their own. There was a list made up of allowed witnesses and they were told they could call some of them, and Turley was on that list. Therefore they were the Democrats' witnesses that were called.https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1219397560118530049
notobtuse wrote: » Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton?
Stateofyou wrote: » They're not president and haven't been impeached.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Why it’s almost impossible to tell if Trump attempted bribery or obstruction of justice. Both bribery and obstruction of justice are intent based crimes. It all comes down to what Trump’s intentions were in that phone call. Neither the act of holding back the aid or holding it back in exchange for something in return are illegal. The rationale is what’s key here. If Trump held back the aid because he wanted to pressure Ukraine into investigating alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton’s supposed emails being in some Ukrainian server (almost certainly BS but that doesn’t matter) as well as pressure to clean up corruption in Ukraine which may involve investigating Biden allegedly pressuring Ukrainian authorities to call off the prosecutor investigating his son. Then this is completely legal. It is certainly in the US national interest both to investigate if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. It’s also in their interest to know if Biden pressured them when he was VP. Now, if it can proven that Trump’s sought to get Ukraine to do this not in the US national interest but purely as a measure to help his 2020 campaign then he should be impeached. To verify this, you have to either hear from Trump or someone who spoke to him that this was his intent. That isn’t likely to happen.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Now, if it can proven that Trump’s sought to get Ukraine to do this not in the US national interest but purely as a measure to help his 2020 campaign then he should be impeached. To verify this, you have to either hear from Trump or someone who spoke to him that this was his intent. That isn’t likely to happen.
silverharp wrote: » Mind reading isn't catered for in the US constitution though it seems to be the main plank of the Dem attack
duploelabs wrote: » In the absence of direct testimony which has been blocked by the Republicans, all the house managers can do the is paint the picture around the absence of blocked evidence
Winning_Stroke wrote: » "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence"
Boggles wrote: » His intent was clear. He had no interest in corruption or an actual investigation. He wanted an announcement of an investigation. The GOP will write into history that POTUS gross abuse of power will be permitted going forward.
duploelabs wrote: » Hersay and conjecture where?
silverharp wrote: » again this is mind reading , the system is designed on the very basis that politicians get to benefit themselves once they are also doing their job. A compromised poll topping candidate to be future President would be the current President’s top priority
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing
Boggles wrote: » It ain't.
silverharp wrote: » that's getting into the weeds
pearcider wrote: » The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it. Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » If the US economy actually is doing well, and there increase with employment, during Trump 4-year term, then its very foolish for the democrats to maintain this circus. End of the day Republicans are never going to switch positions and support getting rid of Trump with 10 months to the next election. All of this local government politics and all republicans fear losing their own cosy positions at the ballot box. Most Americans are not watching this and only care about their own plight economically and they don't care if Trump asked Ukraine or not to investigate Biden. For me this just reveals how out of touch democrats are. They feel Trump stole the election, its the only reason they keep going after him, yet they have underestimated their failure, electing a candidate who was not liked. Hilary lost in states she should have won. All it takes for them states to just pick Trump again and he receives another 4-year term. While democrats are angry with Trump, his holding large rallies to keep his support for the next elections.
duploelabs wrote: » Nadler blowing the 'it's not a crime he committed therefore he can't be impeached' talking point out of the water
Igotadose wrote: » Yep, I especially liked the Lindsay Graham video. The Representative from Texas could use some lessons in public speaking, though. Of course, she's way better a speaker than Trump, who is so laughably bad.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » It's clear Vindman is the mole from his testimony.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Boom!https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1220455281265729536 Should be stripped of his rank. This attempted coup has gone on long enough. He ain't no whistleblower. He's a leaker of classified information. Look what Obama did with them:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/08/trump-rages-about-leakers-obama-quietly-prosecuted-them/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
