• 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

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...

The ONLY thing these "investigations" are about is perpetuating the Democrat narrative that they are going to impeach Trump. It's nothing more than a campaign platform based on their 2018 results. The difference is that in 2018 their voters really believed that they'd get rid of Trump. That didn't happen and it isn't going to happen. Democrats will lose TONS of voter enthusiasm over this stunt. Their base will turn out but moderates will either stay home of vote Trump. Their ONLY chance to retain the amount of control they have is to get rid of Trump and that means pulling the trigger on impeachment. Once that happens and Schiff loses control of the subpoena process it will be over for them. Democrats will be HIGHLY unlikely to pull off an impeachment this year and that's if the Horowitz and Durham reports don't come out. If those reports come out and cast any shade whatsoever on Democrat actions it will be curtains for them even before they get to a vote.
 
year2late said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guess what, this isn't how impeachment inquiries have been handled in the past.
 
digitusmedius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bolded---BWAHAHAHAHAHA, you're kidding right? They have already done that.
 
OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

When Adam Schiff instructed Alex Vindman that he was not required to answer multiple questions by republicans in that hearing regarding the identity of the whistleblower, he was well within that right and protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. When Fox feeds you a narrative such as "Adam Schiff instructed a witness not to answer Republican's questions". You think, 'holy **** that's horrible!!' But Fox doesn't mention the "WHY" Adam Schiff instructed Alex Vindman not to answer those questions that went against the Whistleblower Act. All Republicans sought to do was uncover the identity of the whistelblower by virtual of elimination of possible names of people present during the phone call. The republicans didn't care about the substance of Vindman's deposition, all they cared about was revealing the name of the whistelblower.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It does. The whistle blower worked with Biden and Clapper.
Click to expand...
Since no one knows who the WB is, where did you get this notion?





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.
Click to expand...

There was never any evidence of corruption by the Bidens. ****bag wasn't asking. Did you see any question marks in that summary of the phone call? ****bag was threatening to hold off sending military aid until Zelenskiy made a public announcement about this investigation. Zelenskiy managed to stall long enough that the whole plot was discovered. This is what you get for your unquestioning support for a raging malignant, narcissistic sociopath and pathological liar.



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.
Click to expand...
And when a president uses that power corruptly, as this miserable excuse for one has done in spades, he gets to be held accountable. Buckle your seat belt. He and everyone he's corrupted and suckered are in for a very rough ride.
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
When Adam Schiff instructed Alex Vindman that he was not required to answer multiple questions by republicans in that hearing regarding the identity of the whistleblower, he was well within that right and protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. When Fox feeds you a narrative such as "Adam Schiff instructed a witness not to answer Republican's questions". You think, 'holy **** that's horrible!!' But Fox doesn't mention the "WHY" Adam Schiff instructed Alex Vindman not to answer those questions that went against the Whistleblower Act. All Republicans sought to do was uncover the identity of the whistelblower by virtual of elimination of possible names of people present during the phone call. The republicans didn't care about the substance of Vindman's deposition, all they cared about was revealing the name of the whistelblower.
Click to expand...

Because the identity of the whistleblower destroys the credibility of their impeachment process. The substance of Vindman's testimony is all 2nd hand. Its hearsay. That's why the whistleblower can and should testify to prevent this from looking like the political railroad job it obviously is.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So you deny the possibility?

OK...

Why does confirmation bias rule with the left?
Click to expand...

I don't deny the possibility of anyone being conflicted. I only make my decision based on the likelihood of someone of Alex Vindman's reputation, which is pretty impeccable and not a hint of bias or conflict to muddy up his credibility.
 
HumblePi said:
I don't deny the possibility of anyone being conflicted. I only make my decision based on the likelihood of someone of Alex Vindman's reputation, which is pretty impeccable and not a hint of bias or conflict to muddy up his credibility.
Click to expand...

Or is it because he's a registered democrat?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the identity of the whistleblower destroys the credibility of their impeachment process. The substance of Vindman's testimony is all 2nd hand. Its hearsay. That's why the whistleblower can and should testify to prevent this from looking like the political railroad job it obviously is.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Alex Vindman's testimony is first hand knowledge of the call since he was on the call. It's not hearsay at all.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Or is it because he's a registered democrat?
Click to expand...

A patriot like Alex Vindman would never put party over country. He has dedicated his life to the service of this country.
 
HumblePi said:
A patriot like Alex Vindman would never put party over country. He has dedicated his life to the service of this country.
Click to expand...

Do you know him personally?

If not, how do you know?

Maybe since you think you know so much, you should go and testify too.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It does. The whistle blower worked with Biden and Clapper.
Click to expand...

So what? The mere fact the whistleblower worked in previous administrations isn't enough evidence to conclude there is some dark, sinister conspiracy to "get" Trump. And, I don't know if you noticed this, but this isn't about the whistleblower anymore. There has been an avalanche of witness testimony and evidence which has been made public which has corroborated what the whistleblower said happened.

It shows there is a group of people in government not above falsifying evidence to "get" Trump.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. Nobody knows what the DOJ is investigating specifically. Nothing has been proven. And there is no indication the whistleblower was involved in anything involving the Trump-Russia investigation. None, but you have this idea they are all involved in some conspiracy against Trump. And, I don't know if you noticed this, but this isn't about the whistleblower anymore. There has been an avalanche of witness testimony and evidence which has been made public which has corroborated what the whistleblower said happened.

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.
Click to expand...

He can't instigate. He can't oversee it. He can't ask a foreign leader to "look at" corruption involving Biden. He can't withhold aid or javelin missiles or a White House visit. He can't do that any of that. He can't do any of that because it's a conflict interest. Biden is one of his main political rivals in an upcoming investigation.

In the real world, not the Trump cult world, judges, prosecutors, investigators must recuse themselves in situations for which there is a conflict of interest.

If it's a legitimate concern, the career officials at the FBI and the DOJ can initiate the investigation and can communicate directly with the Ukrainian government. Trump does not need to be involved in any way.

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.
Click to expand...

Yet more evidence that Trump supporters are thugs, bullies, and fascists. This kind of notion you have that the President is above the law and can do anything he wants is FALSE and contrary to everything the founding fathers believed in.

The President cannot take actions that violate his oath of office or represent abuses of office. The President does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

The President took an oath. This is the oath he took:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This oath wasn't to himself. It was to the Constitution.

The person who occupies the office of the Presidency is temporarily entrusted with the power and authority of that office...for the benefit of the Republic. That power and authority comes with responsibilities, duties. It's a contract. Trump was given a job to do. He was not given a prize he gets to keep.

Part of his duties includes not abusing the office to further his own personal interest at the expense of U.S. national interests. We know this because it's outlined in the Constitution as the President can be impeached for: "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

And high crimes and misdemeanors refer to abuses of office:

What Does ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ Actually Mean? - The Atlantic

Duty, honor, country...these words should mean something to Trump and his supporters, but they don't.
 
digitusmedius said:
Since no one knows who the WB is, where did you get this notion?

There was never any evidence of corruption by the Bidens. That's why Zelenskiy kept on promising he'd do something and didn't. This is what you get for your unquestioning support for a raging malignant, narcissistic sociopath and pathological liar.

And when a president uses that power corruptly, as this miserable excuse for one has done in spades, he gets to be held accountable. Buckle your seat belt. He and everyone he's corrupted and suckered are in for a very rough ride.
Click to expand...

1. You don't trust a politician. You don't trust their aides and allies. Ciaramella was Biden and Clapper's ally from top to bottom.

2. We don't know there isn't any evidence, how can you know that before looking?

3. He wanted the concrete truth about Biden's dealings in the Ukraine. The fact that Biden is a political rival is irrelevant to finding the truth about that. Its so absolutely pernicious to try to crucify Trump for something Biden admitted to doing because Trump wanted to know how and why Biden did it in the first place.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
So what? The mere fact the whistleblower worked in previous administrations isn't enough evidence to conclude there is some dark, sinister conspiracy to "get" Trump. And, I don't know if you noticed this, but this isn't about the whistleblower anymore. There has been an avalanche of witness testimony and evidence which has been made public which has corroborated what the whistleblower said happened.



This doesn't make any sense. Nobody knows what the DOJ is investigating specifically. Nothing has been proven. And there is no indication the whistleblower was involved in anything involving the Trump-Russia investigation. None, but you have this idea they are all involved in some conspiracy against Trump. And, I don't know if you noticed this, but this isn't about the whistleblower anymore. There has been an avalanche of witness testimony and evidence which has been made public which has corroborated what the whistleblower said happened.



He can't instigate. He can't oversee it. He can't ask a foreign leader to "look at" corruption involving Biden. He can't withhold aid or javelin missiles or a White House visit. He can't do that any of that. He can't do any of that because it's a conflict interest. Biden is one of his main political rivals in an upcoming investigation.

In the real world, not the Trump cult world, judges, prosecutors, investigators must recuse themselves in situations for which there is a conflict of interest.

If it's a legitimate concern, the career officials at the FBI and the DOJ can initiate the investigation and can communicate directly with the Ukrainian government. Trump does not need to be involved in any way.



Yet more evidence that Trump supporters are thugs, bullies, and fascists. This kind of notion you have that the President is above the law and can do anything he wants is FALSE and contrary to everything the founding fathers believed in.

The President took an oath. This is the oath he took:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This oath wasn't to himself. It was to the Constitution.

The person who occupies the office of the Presidency is temporarily entrusted with the power and authority of that office...for the benefit of the Republic. That power and authority comes with responsibilities, duties. It's a contract. Trump was given a job to do. He was not given a prize he gets to keep.

Part of his duties includes not abusing the office to further his own personal interest at the expense of U.S. national interests. We know this because it's outlined in the Constitution as the President can be impeached for: "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Duty, honor, country...these words should mean something to Trump and his supporters, but they don't.
Click to expand...

See that last sentence? Don't play appeal to emotion insulting bull**** as your closer and Ill address your stupid comments. Now ****ing try again.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the identity of the whistleblower destroys the credibility of their impeachment process. The substance of Vindman's testimony is all 2nd hand. Its hearsay. That's why the whistleblower can and should testify to prevent this from looking like the political railroad job it obviously is.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know who the whistleblower is. I don't think this s the type of setting that gives whistleblower protection, and who ever did leak the information could be in serious trouble.

Vindman's testimony to congress said he was not the whistle blower and doesn't know who did. I'm sure he's being scrutinized though. There were probably less than a dozen people in that room, but any discovery and discipline would likely be done quietly.
 
opportunitycost said:
see that last sentence? Don't play appeal to emotion insulting bull**** as your closer and ill address your stupid comments. Now ****ing try again.
Click to expand...

It is the truth. There's nothing emotional about it.

Trump supporters need to know what they are doing is wrong.

Somebody needs to say it

If I have to be the one to say it. So be it.

If you can't handle the truth. Leave.
 
HumblePi said:
That's not true at all. Alex Vindman's testimony is first hand knowledge of the call since he was on the call. It's not hearsay at all.
Click to expand...

So its shifted to he said she said with Vindman being the key witness. Who was bitter over a campaign aide having more power in Ukraine policy than him. Okay.

That's why Democrats aren't into cross examination. Devil's advocate is the primary way to push witnesses to get unrehearsed answers.
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. You don't trust a politician. You don't trust their aides and allies. Ciaramella was Biden and Clapper's ally from top to bottom.
Click to expand...

Who's Ciarmella?

2. We don't know there isn't any evidence, how can you know that before looking?
Click to expand...

Because we know that one of main government officials who Biden (as well as members of the EU including the UK, our closest ally) identified for corruption was Shokin and Shokin was actually stonewalling the Burisma investigation. You really need to get out of the rightwing pukefunnel of lies and inform yourself.

3. He wanted the concrete truth about Biden's dealings in the Ukraine. The fact that Biden is a political rival is irrelevant to finding the truth about that. Its so absolutely pernicious to try to crucify Trump for something Biden admitted to doing because Trump wanted to know how and why Biden did it in the first place.
Click to expand...
He wanted no such thing. The only thing he wanted was Zelensky to make a big public announcement of the investigation. After that it wouldn't matter whether that investigation found anything or even occurred. All he needed was the fact that the announcement was made so it could become the center piece of his smear campaign on Biden. Your naiveté coupled with your slavish and unconditional worship of ****bag is like a flashing neon self-indictment.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you know him personally?

If not, how do you know?

Maybe since you think you know so much, you should go and testify too.
Click to expand...

Do you know Trump personally? If you do you'd know that he's been sued over 3,500 times and has lied to you, me and everyone in the country more than 12,000 times. But you choose to defend that lawless piece of mobster racketeer and instead try your very best to degrade, disparage and insult a true US patriot.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the identity of the whistleblower destroys the credibility of their impeachment process. The substance of Vindman's testimony is all 2nd hand. Its hearsay. That's why the whistleblower can and should testify to prevent this from looking like the political railroad job it obviously is.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. How does knowing his identity destroy any credibility? That's just FOX-talk your spouting and it's meaningless and nonsensical. We've had TWO people who were ON THE CALL testify, why would anyone need to hear from someone with second-hand knowledge when we already have FIRST HAND knowledge. That's ridiculous and has no basis to support that argument.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So its shifted to he said she said with Vindman being the key witness. Who was bitter over a campaign aide having more power in Ukraine policy than him. Okay.

That's why Democrats aren't into cross examination. Devil's advocate is the primary way to push witnesses to get unrehearsed answers.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's now a "what ****bag said and Vindman heard" situation. And we will get that actual recording of the call eventually. Vindman's an honorable man. Trump is a pile of ****. Those are the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom