Impeachment open thread

1111214161719

Replies

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,902 Senior Member

    That's where the argument goes off the rails. There were loads of reports from the Hill, the NYT, WAPO, and others questioning what Hunter Biden was doing on the Board. You have Kerry's stepson disavowing Biden for his work with Burisma. You have Joe getting a prosecutor fired. And all this time, you have had not one investigation. If it would be reasonable for someone not named Biden, and its valid for someone named Biden.

    Anyway, remember, this isn't just about investigating Biden...if it were this would never have gone anywhere. It's about tying aid to asking for the investigation. You need both, and there's no proof - yet - that this was connected.

    The amount Hunter Biden was getting paid is about 7x what our Board members make. That's fishy as all get out.

  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,166 Senior Member
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,922 Senior Member

    If the republican senators acquit Trumpy which I'm sure they will, it will set a precedent that any future president be it repub or dem, can do what they want, ignore congresses subpoenas. essentially making the presidency no longer an equal branch of government. I find that distressing.

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • GreenMtBoy2GreenMtBoy2 Posts: 118 Senior Member

    @Steven said:
    That's where the argument goes off the rails. There were loads of reports from the Hill, the NYT, WAPO, and others questioning what Hunter Biden was doing on the Board. You have Kerry's stepson disavowing Biden for his work with Burisma. You have Joe getting a prosecutor fired. And all this time, you have had not one investigation. If it would be reasonable for someone not named Biden, and its valid for someone named Biden.

    Anyway, remember, this isn't just about investigating Biden...if it were this would never have gone anywhere. It's about tying aid to asking for the investigation. You need both, and there's no proof - yet - that this was connected.

    The amount Hunter Biden was getting paid is about 7x what our Board members make. That's fishy as all get out.

    What US public policy interests are implicated in Hunter Biden being on the board of an allegedly shady Ukrainian company? Is there a claim he broke any US laws? What is it about him, other than the fact that he is the son of a presidential candidate, that required intense attention by President Trump?

    It is plain as day that Trump was stirring the pot, in his capacity as President, for his own personal interests. It is pure sophistry to contend otherwise.

    The fact that military aid to Ukraine was pending at the time of the “perfect” phone call is enough to make it an abuse of office to ask for an announcement of an investigation into Biden.

    The House managers are entitled to summary judgment- there is no genuine dispute over key material facts and based on those incontrovertible facts conviction is warranted.

    While not necessary in order to convict it is also clear that the President caused the delivery of the aid to be slow walked as a way to pressure Ukraine to do something to advance his personal interests.

    It would be interesting to hear from John Bolton.

    But, don’t worry, Trump won’t be convicted. The Senate Republicans will place their own interests ahead of the nation’s, to their everlasting shame.

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member

    From what I can tell the nation is doing better than it has in my generation.

    So What exactly do you think Removing Trump from office is going to fix? Do you Truly want to see the nation collapse into chaos?

  • bushart1bushart1 Posts: 311 Senior Member

    Apparently it is going un-noticed about that balance of power

    I was actually surprised you could just ignore a subpoena

    So when the next POTUS decides not to co-operate and release info or honour subpoenas ---what will you do when it's not your guy?

  • bushart1bushart1 Posts: 311 Senior Member

    Don't forget this **** for tat goes beyond Ukraine

    Remember when we had to under treaty arrest Huawei Meng---because of a made up no trade with Iran
    Thus costing Canada billions of lost trade with China
    2 Canadians still locked in a Chinese hole Without charges"---over a year later
    While Meng lives in her multi million dollar mansion in BC
    Only to have Trump say---Hey if we can strike a trade deal with China maybe he'd let her go
    Sound familiar

    Or how about the 1st contract NAFTA---so tariffs were off the table
    to break the deal Trump invents Canada as a security risk to the US under section 232
    Yeah---labeling us a security risk played well here
    Look familiar?

    Ask yourself just where would he stop?

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member
    edited January 25 #399

     I was surprised you could surveil an opposing presidential candidates team without advising the candidate. I was surprised people actually believed the Russia hoax. Alot of you fell for it hook line and sinker (that tells me you let your bias overrule your common sense). I was surprised you could convict people of unrelated crimes, abolish the attorney client privilege of the POTUS, based on totally fake evidence that was provided by a known hostile source. But it happened.

    And yet, after all that happening. Three years of 24/7 coverage of Adam Shciff telling the world he had undeniable evidence that the POTUS was a traitor. After all that,, you're telling me that you're surprised the POTUS didn't want to play along with this next effort to remove him from office, at any and all cost? Does that really surprise you?I hope not...


    Remember when... https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountable-fbi-report.pdf

  • bushart1bushart1 Posts: 311 Senior Member

    @bushart1 said:
    Schiff's 2 1/2 hour opening argument was very compelling---factual based on documentation and witness testimony

    You should show the guy that lost the last election yet resides in the white house the door

    Good point---Zelensky can't get a white house visit yet the Russian foreign minister gets welcomed with open arms

    Another good point---beginning of the end
    you let hairpiece obstruct and break the law putting your security in jeopardy----you will reap what you sow----future presidents will know that obstruction is easy under the title
    bingo---you get a king

    don't forget---your guy admires dictators----Rocket man---Putin---Erdogan---he wants that title
    thanks for stoppin by

    Bump
    Apparently Bolton agreed with me last week
    Not sure I like that :-)

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,902 Senior Member

    @bushart1 said:
    Apparently it is going un-noticed about that balance of power

    I was actually surprised you could just ignore a subpoena

    So when the next POTUS decides not to co-operate and release info or honour subpoenas ---what will you do when it's not your guy?

    Nothing. Like with Obama...and many other Administrations. This isn't the first, and won't be the last.

    I realize you're not American, so may not be up on our system. We have three equal branches of government - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary. Unlike in a parliamentary system, the legislative does not sit above the Executive. Thus we have separation of powers.

    The Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress has the right to issue subpoena's as part of the legislative process (although this is not expressly a power listed in the Constitution). Conversely, as part of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court has also acknowledged that President has the power to assert Executive Privilege.

    Very few cases have actually gone to the Courts (the House's subpoena of records regarding Fast and Furious was one that did). Usually, these things are settled between the parties.

    With regards to Fast and Furious, the Courts found for the House but it took 3 1/2 years and the whole thing was moot by then.

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member

    “Nine months left to go, the people should judge," Feinstein said, according to the paper, alluding to the 2020 presidential election. "We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people -- the people should judge.”

    Yep.

  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,922 Senior Member

    Please show me the link where Feinstein said this.

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,464 Senior Member
    edited January 29 #404

    C'mon Mike...You have google like everyone else.

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member

    @Goldenladle said:
    Please show me the link where Feinstein said this.

    Do you disagree with Feinstein?

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member
    edited January 29 #406

    Feinstein is right about this.
    There’s nothing that’s been presented so far including Bolton that’s going to remove Trump from office. At this point it’s just election meddling. They tricky part is that I don’t think it’s going to hurt Trump nearly as much as it does Biden when witnesses are called. In fact I’m starting to believe this is part of the plan all along. At any point Trump could have just agreed to quid pro quo, and it’d be over. But this,, is as far as I can tell is the ONLY way to get Biden on the stand where there are going to be a lot of questions for him to answer under oath. It won’t look good and if he stumbles like he usually does, he’ll be trapped. I'd really like to see Schiff and the whitlsblower on the stand also. So, by all means let's call the witnesses and carry on with the s hit show!

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,947 Senior Member
    edited January 29 #407
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 4,486 Senior Member

    When the dust settles it'll be an 84 year old communist vs Trump and his economy. Congrats.

  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,922 Senior Member

    @MikeA said:

    @Goldenladle said:
    Please show me the link where Feinstein said this.

    Do you disagree with Feinstein?

    I do. Her comments remind me of a certain supreme court nominee and an election year.

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,902 Senior Member

    “Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

    Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”

    Interesting, because I think character, ability, physical and mental fitness are exactly what the people should be voting on.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,510 Senior Member

    @MikeA said:
    When the dust settles it'll be an 84 year old communist vs Trump and his economy. Congrats.

    I don't think it will be a Mondale-like defeat, because a lot of the states are solidly democratic regardless of the candidate, but it will definitely be a bad beatdown.

  • GreenMtBoy2GreenMtBoy2 Posts: 118 Senior Member

    @sherb said:

    @MikeA said:
    When the dust settles it'll be an 84 year old communist vs Trump and his economy. Congrats.

    I don't think it will be a Mondale-like defeat, because a lot of the states are solidly democratic regardless of the candidate, but it will definitely be a bad beatdown.

    Which, as terrible as having four more years of Trump will be, may be what is needed for the Prog wing of the Ds to figure things up, shape out and fly right.

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,902 Senior Member
    edited January 29 #413

    @sherb said:

    I don't think it will be a Mondale-like defeat, because a lot of the states are solidly democratic regardless of the candidate, but it will definitely be a bad beatdown.

    Take Bernie and the points.

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,202 Senior Member

    Dershowitz doubles down.

    Today he actually argued at the trial that if the President does whatever to help himself get re:elected in the belief that his remaining in office is good for the country, it is NOT an impeachable offense.

    To carry the good professor's argument to its extreme, let us assume that some future Prez has a hit put on an opponent, believing sincerely that his or her remaining in office is in the best interests of our country. Ergo, that would not be an impeachable offense.

    OJ is peeing in his pants from uncontrollable laughter, I'm sure.

    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • bushart1bushart1 Posts: 311 Senior Member

    @George K said:
    Dershowitz doubles down.

    Today he actually argued at the trial that if the President does whatever to help himself get re:elected in the belief that his remaining in office is good for the country, it is NOT an impeachable offense.

    To carry the good professor's argument to its extreme, let us assume that some future Prez has a hit put on an opponent, believing sincerely that his or her remaining in office is in the best interests of our country. Ergo, that would not be an impeachable offense.

    OJ is peeing in his pants from uncontrollable laughter, I'm sure.

    I may be just a member of the Great Unwashed---but I'm thinkin The Dersh stretched that a little

  • bushart1bushart1 Posts: 311 Senior Member

    Here's a quick question-for non GOP'rs--not really worthy of a new thread

    Is Trump using taxpayer dollars for these weekly junkets that are really campaign rallies?

    With the deficit hovering at a trillion dollars---what's the cost to---rent an arena---use AF 1---have all the security

    Essentially is he using Gov't coffers to go insult his opponents?
    Like are the dems in a round about way funding what typically was funded thru party donations?

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 4,510 Senior Member

    @George K said:
    Dershowitz doubles down.

    Today he actually argued at the trial that if the President does whatever to help himself get re:elected in the belief that his remaining in office is good for the country, it is NOT an impeachable offense.

    To carry the good professor's argument to its extreme, let us assume that some future Prez has a hit put on an opponent, believing sincerely that his or her remaining in office is in the best interests of our country. Ergo, that would not be an impeachable offense.

    OJ is peeing in his pants from uncontrollable laughter, I'm sure.

    Good advocacy on behalf of a client, but certainly unconvincing.

    I always tell my employees that its important to recognize a tactic as a tactic.

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,464 Senior Member

    @bushart1 said:
    Here's a quick question-for non GOP'rs--not really worthy of a new thread

    Is Trump using taxpayer dollars for these weekly junkets that are really campaign rallies?

    With the deficit hovering at a trillion dollars---what's the cost to---rent an arena---use AF 1---have all the security

    Essentially is he using Gov't coffers to go insult his opponents?
    Like are the dems in a round about way funding what typically was funded thru party donations?

    Better question... How much tax dollars are dedicated to salaries for the dems that are on witch hunt instead of doing things that should be done?

  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,464 Senior Member
    edited January 30 #421

    When the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound the law. When neither is, you pound the table. :#

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.