• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shouting match erupts in Vindman deposition

Did that (bolded above) actually happen? If not, then you may have a rather weak case.

Right because everyone knows if a conspiracy fails, no harm no foul. So if you hire a hit man to kill your wife, and the plot is uncovered and thwarted, no problem...
 
Right because everyone knows if a conspiracy fails, no harm no foul. So if you hire a hit man to kill your wife, and the plot is uncovered and thwarted, no problem...

Impeachment is, was and shall remain a 100% political process. Allegations (articles of impeachment) are not judged on their legal merits, but instead on their political value (implications?). Despite the fact that Bill Clinton openly confessed to having committed felony perjury, he was deemed (voted?) "not guilty" of any offense worthy of removing him from office by at least 34 US Senators.
 
OK, but is that attempted Hobbs Act (felony?) violation by Trump any more serious of a charge (article of impeachment) than self-confessed felony perjury by Bill Clinton was? Please refrain from introducing any "other factors", since impeachment is a purely political matter, or I will do the same.

The bottom line is that an impeachment "trial" in the US Senate is not a normal jury trial affair where the "impartial" jurors are "duty bound" to follow the law and is, was and will continue to be an entirely political venue where "jury nullification" (largely along partisan poetical party lines) is the established precedent and the POTUS is highly likely to be left in office.

Yes, it is a felony. The statutory maximum for the attempt is 24 months imprisonment. And with the number of people involved, and the amount of money at stake, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the maximum. I'm not terribly concerned about what the Senate does. There's a crime here. I want Trump indicted after he is out of office.
 
OK, but is that attempted Hobbs Act (felony?) violation by Trump any more serious of a charge (article of impeachment) than self-confessed felony perjury by Bill Clinton was? Please refrain from introducing any "other factors", since impeachment is a purely political matter, or I will do the same.

The bottom line is that an impeachment "trial" in the US Senate is not a normal jury trial affair where the "impartial" jurors are "duty bound" to follow the law and is, was and will continue to be an entirely political venue where "jury nullification" (largely along partisan poetical party lines) is the established precedent and the POTUS is highly likely to be left in office.

You're right, it's a political question. But you're moving the goal posts from something like, "Is it appropriate" to "will the Senate vote to remove?"

What a lot of we liberals want to do with impeachment is draw a line in the sand and say "this is unacceptable." So if a President tries this in the future the expectation is they will face a public impeachment inquiry over it, and their allies in the Senate will have to vote to say, "Yes, in our view, POTUS conspiring with a foreign government to put his political rival under the thumb of that foreign government's police agencies is OK! THAT is entirely appropriate behavior in our view."

Or they may thread the needle and condemn it, but refuse to vote to remove, which is another kind of acceptance. That's basically what happened with Clinton - yes, he committed perjury, to hide an affair with a staffer. But at the least, those voting for impeachment then removal have to publicly declare a side one way or the other.

The alternative is to move the bar into the ditch where there is no price to pay for this kind of behavior. For some of us, that's not an acceptable outcome. I presume that was the GOP thinking when Clinton was impeached - put Democrats on the record with that vote, that some perjury is OK for the President of the United States. But what that did, and it's probably a good thing, is put Bush II and Obama and Trump on notice that perjury might not be sufficient to remove, but it's bad enough to expect to be subject to a highly visible impeachment inquiry. The Clinton hearings should deter that in the future.
 
Same can be said about the Ukraine Biden situation

If not everything, most everything that was the basis of the investigation into Trumps campagin was based on information gathered from foreign nationals.

So investigations must lead to indictments to be legitimate?


After Biden leveraged foreign aide, the kead prosecuter was fired, and the investigation was dismissed. Thats what your hanging your hat on?


I have no objections to any of them being investigated.


Im not desperately searching for anything. Im paitently waiting for someone to make a persuasive case to back up their claim.


Now your trying to move the goal posts but its fine i will play along.

We are also known for having a fair and equal justice system that affords everyone the presumption of innonence. It seems some of you are willing to abandon that for the sake of getting rid of Trump.



Perhaps we can hsve a trial before declaring him guility



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk






The entire thing was based on the steele document that was never verified and obtained by foreign nationals you seriously do not know what you are talking about.
the steele document would have been thrown out in any court as hearsay and invalid based on rumor.



Biden used withheld government money until the ukranian government fired the guy that was looking into it and put in another guy that went ol yea no wrong doing.
So again ignoring actual facts does no help you here.



Obama, biden, Comey, McCabe etc right now are all sweating in their pants because of the new criminal investigation that just opened up into what
they did and what they were doing. So you might want to stop glossing over stuff.



yep in america we don't hold witch trials. we have due process not baseless accusations based on hearsay and rumor.

There's too much willful ignorance to unpack here and who's kidding who? Donald Trump could stab a nun and prison-rape a 4-year-old and his sycophantic asslickers would still be convinced by Sean insHannity that their Orange Messiah did nothing wrong.

All the TRUTH in the world will not convince you that you are supporting a crooked idiot as PUSA, so I'm not gonna waste my time. Bottomline is this -- Donald J. Trump and NO other president committed a criminal offense by asking a foreign government to create dirt on a political rival.

And although it's great comedy and indicative of these times, when a common criminal, reality-TV idiot is occupying the WH, you might wanna educate yourself on the deluge of misinformation and long debunked myths you've been tricked into believing and like to repeat, start here:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong
Mueller Report: Breaking Down the Biggest Myths | Time


:2wave:
 
Did that (bolded above) actually happen? If not, then you may have a rather weak case.

facepalm-head.jpg
 
Back that up! Right ****ing now!

That is ****ing garbage. You should feel bad for thinking it. No law enforcement agency opened an investigation into Hunter Biden, whatsoever. No law enforcement agency opened an investigation into his father. Trump is a piece of **** using taxpayer dollars as leverage to take down an election opponent all while damaging national security.
I understand your confusion about what i said and i clarified what i meant in post #270.

How do you know there no law enforcement agency examining hunter or joes activities? Im not saying there is but we would not know if there was and going from what Trump said it sounds like maybe they are subjects of an investigation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
OK, assume DoJ is running an official investigation. Barr denies it but he could obviously be lying. The fact Trump gave Rudy the authority of the AG, when Rudy's legal and ethical obligation is to his thug clients, is still incredibly damning and inappropriate. If there IS a U.S. investigation, Rudy's role is 1,000 miles away from any of it, not as the point person.
The whole complaint about Giuliani's involvement imo is way overblown like most of the accusations against Trump.

1. Its not unusual for a private citizen to hire a private investigator to assist with an investigation or conduct an independent one. A fair argument can be made that Trump could be doing this in that capacity. However if we are gonna reject that he is acting as a private citizen...
2. Its not unusual for the federal gov to use private sector help or assit in various ways. Theres many examples of presidents asking former political figures to go overseas to negotiate on behalf of the United States even though they were private citizens.

Bottom lune is Trump trusts Rudy to act in his best interests and theres no illegal about making him the point man. Its something sll presidents do in one form or another and something the other side complains about.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
There's too much willful ignorance to unpack here and who's kidding who? Donald Trump could stab a nun and prison-rape a 4-year-old and his sycophantic asslickers would still be convinced by Sean insHannity that their Orange Messiah did nothing wrong.

All the TRUTH in the world will not convince you that you are supporting a crooked idiot as PUSA, so I'm not gonna waste my time. Bottomline is this -- Donald J. Trump and NO other president committed a criminal offense by asking a foreign government to create dirt on a political rival.

And although it's great comedy and indicative of these times, when a common criminal, reality-TV idiot is occupying the WH, you might wanna educate yourself on the deluge of misinformation and long debunked myths you've been tricked into believing and like to repeat, start here:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong
Mueller Report: Breaking Down the Biggest Myths | Time


:2wave:
I took the time and from the looks of things so did ludin, to unpack YOUR " willfull ignorance " and instead of standing your ground ypu have chosen to cut and run.

Maybe you should take a step back and rexamine your own position rather than dismissing things that conform to your preconceptions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I took the time and from the looks of things so did ludin, to unpack YOUR " willfull ignorance " and instead of standing your ground ypu have chosen to cut and run.

Maybe you should take a step back and rexamine your own position rather than dismissing things that conform to your preconceptions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Did it really take a lot of time to regurgitate the spooge that sean hannity jizzed down your willing throat? Sorry, but I didn't see any real effort from you or your comrade. Just repeating the same, old, tired, dishonest radical right-wing talking points that have been long since debunked.

To sit there and conflate what Joe Biden did with Ukraine and what Donald Trump did with Ukraine, is either the height of ignorance -- or the height of dishonesty - but more likely, both. When you're willing to admit they were different scenarios, I'd be willing to have a reasonable debate with you. If you can't do that, then I have no desire to debate obstinate dishonesty because it's like talking to a wall.

You didn't read the article I posted, did you?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
The whole complaint about Giuliani's involvement imo is way overblown like most of the accusations against Trump.

1. Its not unusual for a private citizen to hire a private investigator to assist with an investigation or conduct an independent one. A fair argument can be made that Trump could be doing this in that capacity. However if we are gonna reject that he is acting as a private citizen...
2. Its not unusual for the federal gov to use private sector help or assit in various ways. Theres many examples of presidents asking former political figures to go overseas to negotiate on behalf of the United States even though they were private citizens.

Bottom lune is Trump trusts Rudy to act in his best interests and theres no illegal about making him the point man. Its something sll presidents do in one form or another and something the other side complains about.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm just not aware of any similar example. For starters, we know because Rudy told us that Parnas - a new indicted oligarch thug - paid Rudy $500k for work. Parnas has interests in Ukraine. So how can Rudy represent his $500k client and the United States when if there is a conflict he's literally obligated as an attorney to serve the interests of his clients. That is his primary obligation. He butt dialed an NBC reporter the other day talking about another client and how he needs money, "a few hundred thousand" - for what? Who knows?

I can't imagine another example of the President tasking a private attorney, in legal terms conflicted out the wazoo, as point for serious foreign policy negotiations on behalf of this country. If you can think of one, great. I can't.
 
Did it really take a lot of time to regurgitate the spooge that sean hannity jizzed down your willing throat? Sorry, but I didn't see any real effort from you or your comrade. Just repeating the same, old, tired, dishonest radical right-wing talking points that have been long since debunked.

To sit there and conflate what Joe Biden did with Ukraine and what Donald Trump did with Ukraine, is either the height of ignorance -- or the height of dishonesty - but more likely, both. When you're willing to admit they were different scenarios, I'd be willing to have a reasonable debate with you. If you can't do that, then I have no desire to debate obstinate dishonesty because it's like talking to a wall.

You didn't read the article I posted, did you?

:confused::confused::confused:
The disdain your expressing for those that dont submit to your political ideologies speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I'm just not aware of any similar example. For starters, we know because Rudy told us that Parnas - a new indicted oligarch thug - paid Rudy $500k for work. Parnas has interests in Ukraine. So how can Rudy represent his $500k client and the United States when if there is a conflict he's literally obligated as an attorney to serve the interests of his clients. That is his primary obligation. He butt dialed an NBC reporter the other day talking about another client and how he needs money, "a few hundred thousand" - for what? Who knows?

I can't imagine another example of the President tasking a private attorney, in legal terms conflicted out the wazoo, as point for serious foreign policy negotiations on behalf of this country. If you can think of one, great. I can't.
Conflict of interest is an interesting argument. If there is one i think he should lose his license to practice law. Thats not on Trump, its his obligstion to inform his client of the conflict snd refuse the work.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The disdain your expressing for those that dont submit to your political ideologies speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Only, I'm not beholden to any political ideology or party -- I am beholden to only ONE thing -- the TRUTH.

And yes, "disdain" is too kind a word for the feelings I have for those that don't practice and live by it.

:naughty
 
Conflict of interest is an interesting argument. If there is one i think he should lose his license to practice law. Thats not on Trump, its his obligstion to inform his client of the conflict snd refuse the work.

It's IMO Trump's obligation to see to that. When Mueller was tasked, he was required to I'm sure first disclose his conflicts of interest, and resign from the law firm, to forego any private clients while named special counsel. That's what happens when these things are done through official channels. When they're done on the fly in secret, those things don't happen and when they don't it's the fault of the BOSS, who according to Barr is the executive branch in toto...

That's I'm sure one of the many reasons so many involved - Bolton and others - went running to their respective in-house lawyers to report this nonsense, because it was so extraordinarily inappropriate for a conflicted Rudy running shadow foreign policy on the fly. The ADNI referred it officially to DoJ for a criminal referral. Barr and company said it's all AOK. Who cares if Rudy is getting paid $500k by a thug oligarch while engaging in U.S. foreign policy? So at multiple levels the WH signed off on all this. You can't blame Rudy for that. I almost, ALMOST, feel sorry for him in a way.
 
Full title: Shouting match erupts in Vindman deposition as Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to out whistleblower

Lost for for any rational means of defending Trump's attempt to make a foreign government investigate his political rival by withholding critical military aid, Republicans have only three means left to them:

1) attack the process
2) attack the witnesses
3) refuse to answer the question of whether it's appropriate for a President to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival

However, one of these witnesses is anonymous, depriving Republicans of the ability to attack the him or her directly, such as they did with Vindman today by questioning his patriotism.

In the process, Republicans will burn down the whistleblower program in order to protect Trump. We can also safely predict where they will move the goal post to: impeachment cannot be considered until the identity of the whistleblower is revealed. Congressional Republicans haven't made that demand yet, but we can see how the anonymity of the WB is driving them up the walls, so I'm pretty confident they'll arrive at that demand soon enough.



Right. They're not trying to ferret out who the whistleblower is. They just want to know who Vindman spoke to.



Right. They're not trying to figure out who the whistleblower is. They just want to speak directly with the person who's "trying to bring down the President of the United States," a phrasing that doesn't at all reveal a deeply personal and pathological need to defend the President at the cost of blowing up the rule of law itself.

Shouting match erupts in Vindman deposition as Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to out whistleblower - CNNPolitics

You get more comical with every thread.

Democrats would do the very same thing...............................but it's your team!
 
It's IMO Trump's obligation to see to that. When Mueller was tasked, he was required to I'm sure first disclose his conflicts of interest, and resign from the law firm, to forego any private clients while named special counsel. That's what happens when these things are done through official channels. When they're done on the fly in secret, those things don't happen and when they don't it's the fault of the BOSS, who according to Barr is the executive branch in toto...

That's I'm sure one of the many reasons so many involved - Bolton and others - went running to their respective in-house lawyers to report this nonsense, because it was so extraordinarily inappropriate for a conflicted Rudy running shadow foreign policy on the fly. The ADNI referred it officially to DoJ for a criminal referral. Barr and company said it's all AOK. Who cares if Rudy is getting paid $500k by a thug oligarch while engaging in U.S. foreign policy? So at multiple levels the WH signed off on all this. You can't blame Rudy for that. I almost, ALMOST, feel sorry for him in a way.
Assuming everything your saying is accurate. I cant lay this at Trumps feet without more but i do see a big problem here that rudy owns

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Assuming everything your saying is accurate. I cant lay this at Trumps feet without more but i do see a big problem here that rudy owns
Of course not... everywhere is 5th Avenue to Trump sycophants.
 
Back
Top Bottom