• 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!

White House lawyer moved transcript of Trump call to classified server after Ukraine adviser raised

W_Heisenberg said:
And yet every single day every thing the whistleblower revealed keeps getting independently corroborated by a parade of witnesses.

The problem isn’t with anyone else but Trump. He’s the problem.
Click to expand...

The problem becomes one of credibility. That's why they are pushing forward. If they wait until Durham and Barr go after Clapper, Brennan, Page, and others, they wont have the credibility to keep pushing the Ukraine impeachment. Because it will become very clear that Trump was right, they were out to get him, they did spy on him and they did lie about the convictions they already had (see Lisa Page and edited 302's). Ukraine will then become what it should have been in the first place, a difference of opinion on a continuing investigation.

The fact that a President benefits from policy that still needs to occur is irrelevant if it is something in his powers to pursue and it serves the interests of the US. Finding corruption serves the US if Democrats are getting rich by placing family members in gas/oil companies in the Ukraine through political connections and pressure.
 
HumblePi said:
No, you're wrong about there having to be an explicit quid pro quo for it to be corruption, although there were 5 depositions given that confirm it was a quid pro quo. But this quid-pro-quo dispute misses the larger, and more important, point: What Trump did was wrong, and an abuse of his power as president, irrespective of whether there was a quid pro quo. This wasn’t a request to advance the foreign policy objectives of the United States. It was to improve Trump’s odds of winning re-election in 2020. It is inappropriate at the very least, and an abuse of power, for a president to ask a foreign government specifically to investigate a political rival. That is what Trump asked of Zelensky privately. And he compounded it by making a similar request to China publicly.
Click to expand...

Also withholding the aid approved by congress. It's an offence in itself to withhold it, let alone use it to leverage the situation for personal gain.
 
year2late said:
Are you saying they have not been given the opportunity to speak?
Click to expand...

Trump will not be allowed a lawyer, the House minority may not call witnesses and Schiff is directing witnesses in what questions they can and cannot answer. Sounds completely fair and impartial...if you are trying to rig the outcome.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Also withholding the aid approved by congress. It's an offence in itself to withhold it, let alone use it to leverage the situation for personal gain.
Click to expand...

As soon as you want Biden prosecuted for withholding aid, I can believe that statement. Otherwise? No.
 
HumblePi said:
The American people can judge for themselves using their eyes and ears as one by one, witnesses come forward to give testimony and are subjected to full questioning and cross-examining by both parties.
Click to expand...

Let's see which, if any, witnesses Schiff allows Republicans to call.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trump will not be allowed a lawyer, the House minority may not call witnesses and Schiff is directing witnesses in what questions they can and cannot answer. Sounds completely fair and impartial...if you are trying to rig the outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned that. If you recall, Trump vowed not to cooperate with Congress, remember? His stonewalling and refusals to comply with the requests made by different committees to provide documents or witnesses will ultimately work against him in an obstruction of justice allegations.

The Constitution says the “House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and it does not give the president a specific role in the process. A president is like an ordinary defendant who may be subject to a criminal investigation and an indictment, all without his participation or involvement.

“The president’s cooperation is not required or needed,” according to University of North Carolina law professor Michael J. Gerhardt, an expert on impeachment. And “the House may make that defiance grounds for impeachment,” he added, noting that in 1974, a House committee approved articles of impeachment against President Nixon based in part on his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.
 
HumblePi said:
I'm glad you mentioned that. If you recall, Trump vowed not to cooperate with Congress, remember? His stonewalling and refusals to comply with the requests made by different committees to provide documents or witnesses will ultimately work against him in an obstruction of justice allegations.

The Constitution says the “House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and it does not give the president a specific role in the process. A president is like an ordinary defendant who may be subject to a criminal investigation and an indictment, all without his participation or involvement.

“The president’s cooperation is not required or needed,” said University of North Carolina law professor Michael J. Gerhardt, an expert on impeachment. And “the House may make that defiance grounds for impeachment,” he added, noting that in 1974, a House committee approved articles of impeachment against President Nixon based in part on his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.
Click to expand...

Humble no offense but dammit, no matter who someone is in the United States they should never be charged with anything without the right to counsel. This may be a political process but that doesn't mean he gets no rights whatsoever!
 
OpportunityCost said:
The problem becomes one of credibility. That's why they are pushing forward. If they wait until Durham and Barr go after Clapper, Brennan, Page, and others, they wont have the credibility to keep pushing the Ukraine impeachment. Because it will become very clear that Trump was right, they were out to get him, they did spy on him and they did lie about the convictions they already had (see Lisa Page and edited 302's).
Click to expand...

Whose credibility? Clapper, Brennan, Page, etc., aren't members of the Congressional committees investigating this Ukraine scandal. Why would any investigation of Clapper, Brennan, Page, and others matter with respect to this investigation? And Trump's demands on Ukraine extended further than the goofy conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike. For instance, the Burisma stuff has nothing to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Ukraine will then become what it should have been in the first place, a difference of opinion on a continuing investigation. The fact that a President benefits from policy that still needs to occur is irrelevant if it is something in his powers to pursue and it serves the interests of the US.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant. It's a clear conflict of interest. Trump shouldn't be involved in the initiation of any investigation involving one of his main political rivals. If any government employee were in a similar situation they'd be forced to recuse themselves. This is like a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his wife. Or, a prosecutor overseeing a criminal case involving a neighbor, and for which the two have a long, bitter, and ongoing property dispute. It's just not allowed.

Finding corruption serves the US if Democrats are getting rich by placing family members in gas/oil companies in the Ukraine through political connections and pressure.
Click to expand...

Trump can't be the one asking for it. If there is an investigation of Biden it has to be organically generated by career officials at the FBI or in Ukraine. And there is probably a really good reason Trump had to resort to extorting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
 
Lutherf said:
Let's see which, if any, witnesses Schiff allows Republicans to call.
Click to expand...

Adam Schiff is following -- to the letter -- the procedures drawn up by none other than John Boehner. Democrats are using the republican party rules as to how this is to go. Sadly, the republican party has arranged its own demise, it's the end.
 
HumblePi said:
Adam Schiff is following -- to the letter -- the procedures drawn up by none other than John Boehner. Democrats are using the republican party rules as to how this is to go. Sadly, the republican party has arranged its own demise, it's the end.
Click to expand...

As long as you're good with an entirely one sided "investigation" all is well...until next November when you get to see the results of what the Democrats have done.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Humble no offense but dammit, no matter who someone is in the United States they should never be charged with anything without the right to counsel. This may be a political process but that doesn't mean he gets no rights whatsoever!
Click to expand...

That's how the Constitution was written and that's how all impeachment proceedings have been since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. If you recall, Donald Trump had every opportunity to contribute to his own vindication by providing requested documents and witnesses, he did not do that. Instead, he hid everything from sight or discovery. An innocent man does not do that.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Whose credibility? Clapper, Brennan, Page, etc., aren't members of the Congressional committees investigating this Ukraine scandal. Why would any investigation of Clapper, Brennan, Page, and others matter with respect to this investigation? And Trump's demands on Ukraine extended further than the goofy conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike. For instance, the Burisma stuff has nothing to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

It does. The whistle blower worked with Biden and Clapper. It shows there is a group of people in government not above falsifying evidence to "get" Trump.



It's not irrelevant. It's a clear conflict of interest. Trump shouldn't be involved in the initiation of any investigation involving one of his main political rivals. If any government employee were in a similar situation they'd be forced to recuse themselves. This is like a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his wife. Or, a prosecutor overseeing a criminal case involving a neighbor, and for which the two have a long, bitter, and ongoing property dispute. It's just not allowed.
Click to expand...

He's not overseeing anything, he's asking another foreign leader to look at corruption regarding Biden and his decision to withhold aid previously as well as any connections that may have come from Burisma. If you really want to know what happened, you look into it, regardless of where it leads.

Trump can't be the one asking for it. If there is an investigation of Biden it has to be organically generated by career officials at the FBI or in Ukraine. And there is probably a really good reason Trump had to resort to extorting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
Click to expand...

No the **** it doesn't. The President IS the executive branch, any and all power and authority they have is ceded by the President to them. This is a false bar to investigation designed to protect Biden.
 
HumblePi said:
That's how the Constitution was written and that's how all impeachment proceedings have been since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. If you recall, Donald Trump had every opportunity to contribute to his own vindication by providing requested documents and witnesses, he did not do that. Instead, he hid everything from sight or discovery. An innocent man does not do that.
Click to expand...

Completely false. Impeachment hearings are held by the Judiciary committee, both parties are able to subpoena and question witnesses. Quit spinning bull****, it will still be bull****.
 
Lutherf said:
As long as you're good with an entirely one sided "investigation" all is well...until next November when you get to see the results of what the Democrats have done.
Click to expand...

It isn't one sided. It's the exact procedure written by John Boehner and approved overwhelmingly by his republicans in Congress. Everyone will have their opportunity to question witnesses and cross-examine. Unknowingly, Republicans have written and approved their own demise.
 
HumblePi said:
It isn't one sided. It's the exact procedure written by John Boehner and approved overwhelmingly by his republicans in Congress. Everyone will have their opportunity to question witnesses and cross-examine. Unknowingly, Republicans have written and approved their own demise.
Click to expand...

You can never reason or discuss facts with a True Believer.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Completely false. Impeachment hearings are held by the Judiciary committee, both parties are able to subpoena and question witnesses. Quit spinning bull****, it will still be bull****.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You're dismissed because you're not adding anything significant or valid. AND FYI, the hearings have not even BEGUN yet!! AND they will ALL get to ask questions of witnesses. Again, you do not have a clue about this process.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trump will not be allowed a lawyer, the House minority may not call witnesses and Schiff is directing witnesses in what questions they can and cannot answer. Sounds completely fair and impartial...if you are trying to rig the outcome.
Click to expand...

This is not the trial. This is finding evidence. Are others being allowed lawyers? What is the procedure?

Frankly this potus lies so easily....I am curious what he will say under oath.
 
Drawdown said:
And when it reaches the Senate, Trump will get to provide his defense, unlike in the House. Maybe two weeks or three weeks of it all before the Chief Justice who has ruled previously there has to be an explicit quid pro quo for it to be corruption.* Should be for some good TV if you are bored enough to watch.
Click to expand...

That's as good an example of wishful thinking (*not to mention predicting what the John Roberts's rulings would be) as I've seen. It tells us just how scared ****less you people are.
 
HumblePi said:
You're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You're dismissed because you're not adding anything significant or valid.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm 100% correct, you don't want to acknowledge that. It undermines the integrity of the Democratic inquiry.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Nope, I'm 100% correct, you don't want to acknowledge that. It undermines the integrity of the Democratic inquiry.
Click to expand...
nope, You're wrong! BOTH SIDES GET TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - got that yet?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trump will not be allowed a lawyer, the House minority may not call witnesses and Schiff is directing witnesses in what questions they can and cannot answer. Sounds completely fair and impartial...if you are trying to rig the outcome.
Click to expand...

IOW, you're trumpeting from the rooftops that you don't understand the first thing about how impeachment actually works or what it is.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Completely false. Impeachment hearings are held by the Judiciary committee, both parties are able to subpoena and question witnesses. Quit spinning bull****, it will still be bull****.
Click to expand...

The decision to subpoena will be made by a committee vote. It's possible that the majority could block the minority from calling witnesses (which is how Nunes ran the Intel Cmte) but I doubt the Dems would do that. For one thing, their staff lawyers are going to do most of the questioning and I'll bet they can't wait to get a pro-****bag witness to come before them and for another, they're not about to give Republicans one more thing to whine about. The only restriction would be in how many---Dems won't let Republicans try to filibuster these hearings by trying to flood them with ****bag toadies and then claim that Dems are prolonging them.
 
HumblePi said:
nope, You're wrong! BOTH SIDES GET TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - got that yet?
Click to expand...

When Schiff directs witnesses not to answer minority party inquiries, that is controlling witnesses. Why can't the minority call witnesses? It happened in every other impeachment process.
 
HumblePi said:
I don't understand how he could possibly have a conflict of interest. He's an American patriot, his first interest -- and his last interest, is to "protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Click to expand...
So you deny the possibility?

OK...

Why does confirmation bias rule with the left?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom