I did not claim any law did guarantee that. Odd you'd make up my argument, and address that, instead of address what I DID say. More of that impartial, just the facts, centrism I guess.Originally Posted by trixare4kids
I did not claim any law did guarantee that. Odd you'd make up my argument, and address that, instead of address what I DID say. More of that impartial, just the facts, centrism I guess.
That's not an answer.
Have at it, but do it in a fair and just way. I've put much of this impeachment shenanigans on ignore. I'm just sick and tired of it all. Your view is held by approximately 85% of Democrats, 85% of Republicans view it totally opposite. I guess if you're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, you flip a coin.
This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
I believe that it is absolutely essential to impeach Donald Trump, and to convict him , if possible.
Donald Trump is not a threat to democracy in America. He’s neither ambitious or competent enough.
The world sees him as a pathetic figure, and are looking forward to his departure.
But he has set some really dangerous precidents.
He usurped Congress’s power of the purse with his emergency declaration. In a show of total fecklessness, the GOP leadership allowed him to get away with it.
Similarly, he has usurped the power to advise and consent on Presidential appointments,by going around the process with “actings”.
Finally, he has defied the lawful subpoenas of the investigating committees, and thus oversight power.
If these excesses are not addressed by impeachment, they must be by the courts, or legislation. But impeachment and convictions would reverse all of this, if it came to that.
Trump isn’t the threat to American democracy that he appeared to be.
But the behavior of his reactionary base make it clear that a substantial portion of the American public will follow a cult of personality, and begin declaring their loyalty to the leader, and not to the US. We’ve seen quite a lot of that. And we have a President who encourages it.
This is not American.
And we should not fool ourselves into believing that a similar phenomena might not affect the left.
All the more reason why we must thoroughly prevent these actions from becoming the precidents for a future tyrant to follow.
Trump has provided the road map.
And we need to tear it up now.
It's really hard for me to keep track too. The evidence we have is...
1)Trump's phone call, in which he certainly appears to be demanding an investigation into his political rival in return for releasing critical military aid.
2)Giuliani, who admitted on live television that Trump made that demand.
3)Mick Mulvaney, who admitted to the quid pro quo, again on live television.
4)Senator Johnson, who said in an interview that he believed that release of the military aid was contingent on Zelensky opening an investigation into Trump's political rival.
5)John Bolton, who shut down a meeting once it became apparent that it was about demanding an investigation into Trump's political rival.
6. Colonel Vindman, who testified that the Trump administration altered the phone transcript to delete explicit mentions of Biden and Burisma, and said that Sondland implicated Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, in a quid pro quo. Also, he testified that Zelensky knew perfectly well what Trump's "do me a favor" comment meant.
7. Fiona Hill, who also testified that Sondland implicated Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, in a quid pro quo, as well as the unsubstantiated attacks on Marie L. Yovanovitch, who didn't appear to be playing ball in the shakedown of a foreign country, as well as the fact that Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy effort.
8. Marie Yovanovitch, who testified that she was pushed out because she was uncomfortable with the plans to extort Zelensky.
9. Michael McKinley, who testified that he quit because the State Department was being used to dig up dirt on Trump's political opponent, cementing that it was a key point in the Trump administration to use the powers of the Presidency to destroy a political rival by any means.
10. Gordon Sondland, who testified that release of the military aid was contingent on Zelensky beginning an investigation into Trump's political rival.
11. William Taylor, who testified about a clear understanding of a quid pro quo, the belief that a meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky wasn’t “worth it” if Kyiv had to interfere in US politics, and a growing suspicion of Rudy Giuliani’s role in the administration’s Ukraine policy.
12. The fact that the Zelensky administration not only was aware of the extortion, but had actually made the decision to cave in to that extortion and announce on CNN the opening of an investigation into Biden, exactly as Trump demanded. They were saved only by the story blowing up and going public.
I have no doubt that I'm missing a ton of other evidence.
Hill and Vindman Testimony: Key Excerpts From Impeachment Inquiry Transcripts - The New York Times
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...c58_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ine-testimony/
Here Are 5 Key Takeaways From the Hundreds of Pages of Testimony That Were Released Monday by Lawmakers Overseeing the Impeachment Investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nds-testimony/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/w...-zelensky.html
The whistleblower has agreed to answer all questions in written form. The information is public. The only reason for asking for public hearings and unmasking his identity is witness intimidation. If revealed, his life will be in much more danger than it already is now by all those patriotic “law and order” 2nd amendment types.
I think you're wrong about that. If the President can make the case that he had a good reason to push the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens... that it wasn't just Rudy Giuliani's demented ravings and a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theories, then I think the Democrats could accept that. I go with much (but not all) of what Senator Kennedy (R-LA) said on Face the Nation earlier today:
SEN. KENNEDY: The quid pro quo, in my judgment, is a red herring. Here- here are the two possible scenarios. Number one, the president asked for an investigation of a political rival. Number two, the president asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival. The latter would be in the national interest. The former would be in the president's parochial interests and would be over the line. I think this case is going to come down to the president's intent- his motive. Did he have a culpable state of mind? For me, Margaret, there are only two relevant questions that need to be answered. Why did the president ask for an investigation? And number two, and this is inextricably linked to the first question, what did Mr. Hunter Biden do for the money?
"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu
Nope. Schiff's a prodigious liar. Got his head stuck up his ass. That's how his neck got so skinny - trying to pull that empty head outta there.
Yes. Why would you even ask that?Hmm... was Trump not involved directly? The plot sickens.
Whatever. Take your playground insults back to the Sixth Grade. We're trying to have an adult conversation here.
"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote