• 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!

Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

So everything he said, What was actually a crime?

8,000 documents, Does not automatically mean they give it, They have Executive Privilege that is legal and standing and can only be over ruled by a court and WHICH can then be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. That is our laws, its not obstruction but our rights.


How many times he met Zelensky vs Putin..... Um Zelensky took office 05/20/2019, He has had 7 months of office with Zelensky, and 3+ years with Putin... SO What? Is it illegal or wrong.... conjecture

Withholding Aid, Fact is he had to 09/30/2019 to release it, so he could have held it till 09/29/2019 11:59pm and it still not illegal. Holding aid within the legal time frame is NOT illegal. It was appropriated in 2018 meaning its been on hold for almost a year already.... if it was crucial then why not have released it last year in 2018? Due Diligence, (still no crime)

Who sent Rudy Guiliani To Ukraine "To smear joe biden" - is that illegal or a crime? Doubt it
Who fired the Marie Yovananvich - not illegal or a crime and SHE WAS NOT FIRED But re assigned. false conjecture and irrelevant
Who Told Ambo Sonalnd & Volker to Work with Guiliani - is that a crime or illegal? Doubt it
Who Told VP Pence to not got to Zelensky's Inaguration - is that a crime or illegal? Nope and context as the schedule was full and they did not want the P and VP out of the Country at the same time
Who Ordered his own Chief of Staff, to withhold aid - is that a crime or illegal? Doubt it, as if the justification is due diligence of the funding. its warranted
Who Refuse to meet Zelesnky - Is that a crime? Nope
Who ignored NSC Anti Corruptions Talking points - IS that a crime? Nope
Who ask Zelesnky for a Favor? Is this a crime? debatable, (This is where we stand, his context in my opinion is NO) But others do think is a crime. But its NOT clear cut like Clinton Perjuring himself or Nixon and his actual recordings of obstruction.
Who Personally asked Zelenksy to investigate his political rival? is this a crime? Debatable again. If a potential crime is warranted more so in relation to exactly the underlying reason and concern of corruption, what does Biden or the Dems have to hide, I think the best would be to say go ahead and investigated, since we did nothing wrong, when nothing pops up, slam it in Trumps face and then a strong case for actual impeachment, But it seems they are trying to HIDE that simple fact.
Who stood on the Whitehouse lawn and confirmed Ukraine to investigated Biden? ANYONE got videos of this I want to see this in full context. But is that illegal or criminal?
Who stood on the same lawn and asked china to investigated Biden? Is this illegal? (Anyone got this video?



Ok so I did the Swawell talking point game, None of which indicates a crime, or nail in the coffin, his grandstanding with the Dem Council is a joke and sure looks "great" like OP wants to slow clap, BUT none of it actually edifies, or proves the articles of impeachment.

Its conjecture, without facts and accusations without facts. I listed them go ahead and rebuke them! anyways looking for the video of him standing on the lawn to investigate Bidens? As that should also be considered a Bribery if he said it on TV, why have they not used that against him?

Are you giving us a prelude to the trial in the Senate? You should send this to the White House to help them collude and prepare with Senate Republicans.
 
Anything to help them with their cognition! The only responses I seem to be getting are about farting. That says a lot about who they are and what they know or think.

I just had to Google "Swalwell fart". This is what these people talk about?
 
I just had to Google "Swalwell fart". This is what these people talk about?

I don’t know. The conservatives live in a universe devoid of facts, logic, or reason.
 
Apparently, longer than you....

I didn't ask your opinion about how long someone else has been a lawyer. I'm not one, which is why I don't make obviously ignorant comments about hearsay and ignore the roughly dozens of exceptions to it in a court of law, and this isn't a court of law. If that person is a lawyer, he knows better and is being dishonest. If he's not, he's just showing his ignorance.
 
Withholding Aid, Fact is he had to 09/30/2019 to release it, so he could have held it till 09/29/2019 11:59pm and it still not illegal. Holding aid within the legal time frame is NOT illegal. It was appropriated in 2018 meaning its been on hold for almost a year already.... if it was crucial then why not have released it last year in 2018? Due Diligence, (still no crime)

This is 100% FALSE. The Executive MUST apportion the funds so that they can be spent per Congress' appropriations approval. The DoD certified that the funds weren't apportioned in time for them to be able to spend the funds per Congress' approprations bill. That is definitely, 100%, illegal.

Further, the Office of Management and Budget had no legal reason to delay the aid. In the end the Executive violated the Impoundment Control Act which was specifically passed by Congress to prevent Presidents from being able to deny spending funds according to Congress' demands.

Who Ordered his own Chief of Staff, to withhold aid - is that a crime or illegal? Doubt it, as if the justification is due diligence of the funding. its warranted

As I said in response to you in the other thread, this is FALSE. Trump cannot hold the aid up for ANY reason. Even if Zelensky was corrupt as hell, all Trump can do is submit a rescission notice to Congress asking for permission to not spend the money. He didn't do that. Violating the ICA is ABUSE OF POWER.
 
LOL. Do we really think we care what Mr. farter thinks? lol.

Well no because, obviously you also don't give a crap what your Dear Furhrer thinks. Bigly sad.
 
Yeah! Each on sounded suspiciously like “President Trump”.......which is appropriate when you come to think of it.

A trump is a slang term for a fart in GB.
 
Yes it was

Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.

After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”

“The government has nukes.Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted. “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”


He tried to back track on this but it was too late.....

I think Stinkwell makes a lot of sense to want to use Nukes to stop gun violence. I mean, it would work.
 
Well no because, obviously you also don't give a crap what your Dear Furhrer thinks. Bigly sad.

Go watch a documentary about Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Learn some history and stop making disgusting comparisons between Hitler and Trump.
 
And if they don't impeach him, then what?

Then they did their sworn duty, and we can move on the the 2020 campaign. We are still a republic—for now.
 
Impeachment inquiry hearings: Rep. Eric Swalwell questions lawyers on Trump, Ukraine - CBSN Live Video - CBS News

We all know that Trump abused his office. Some of you are having trouble with your cognitive dissonance. I encourage you to view this testimony over and over until you get it.

Stalwell's bloated head is packed full of idiotic assumptions and dummass conclusions. What is missing is any evidence which could be presented in a legitimate court of law of any Trump wrongdoing with regards to Ukraine. Rumors, innuendo, hearsay, opinions, biases and so forth are inadmissible in a real court.
 
Stalwell's bloated head is packed full of idiotic assumptions and dummass conclusions. What is missing is any evidence which could be presented in a legitimate court of law of any Trump wrongdoing with regards to Ukraine. Rumors, innuendo, hearsay, opinions, biases and so forth are inadmissible in a real court.

Impeachment is not a court of law.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.
 
Then they did their sworn duty, and we can move on the the 2020 campaign. We are still a republic—for now.

I would have to agree with you. But I doubt everyone else would be so willing to accept such, as is.
 
Impeachment is not a court of law.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official.

You prove my point. Democrats cannot prove Trump guilty of anything which is why they have suspended all legitimate procedural requirements and due processes in order to convict Trump on 3rd hand hearsay evidence backed only by millions of biased angry democrat anarchists.
 
Go watch a documentary about Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Learn some history and stop making disgusting comparisons between Hitler and Trump.

The similarities between Hitler and Trump are noticeable. I'm almost done reading a book that gave me inspiration to start a thread about it. I'll try to remember to let you know when I do.
 
I think three years of law school and a state bar exam would help you understand better.

What is obvious hearsay is the use of the phrase political rival of Trump to describe Biden that Swalwell and many opponents of Trump have used on many occasions. Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as part of the Obama administration and other activities leading up to the 2016 election. The only way Biden could've been a political rival of Trump before the 2016 election would've been if the Obama administration - Biden - was a political rival of Trump in 2016 which is something Trump was most certainly interested in.

Trump was also interested in stemming the corruption of the previous Ukrainian gov't.
 
You prove my point. Democrats cannot prove Trump guilty of anything which is why they have suspended all legitimate procedural requirements and due processes in order to convict Trump on 3rd hand hearsay evidence backed only by millions of biased angry democrat anarchists.

Articles of Impeachment are just, basically, accusations. It will be up to the Senate to remove him—which they won’t.
 
Are you giving us a prelude to the trial in the Senate? You should send this to the White House to help them collude and prepare with Senate Republicans.

You made it like Swawel was a Champ and had the nail in the coffin..... but in reality, he talked a USELESS talk with zero credibility and zero facts and more so just conjecture and false assumptions.


So basically...it was a 1st ballad hall of fame grandstand... want to know how to grandstand.... watch the video!
 
Whether or not we think Pres. Trump is guilty, whether or not we feel he ought to be tried for removal from office, unless something truly extraordinary (borderline miraculous) occurs in the next two weeks, the odds of him being successfully removed are on par with the odds he'll co-author a bestselling children's book about botany with Sen. Schiff.

I still think the House will vote to impeach, though. The Democratic heavies have invested too much time and walked too far down the road to turn back now.
 
What is obvious hearsay is the use of the phrase political rival of Trump to describe Biden that Swalwell and many opponents of Trump have used on many occasions. Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as part of the Obama administration and other activities leading up to the 2016 election. The only way Biden could've been a political rival of Trump before the 2016 election would've been if the Obama administration - Biden - was a political rival of Trump in 2016 which is something Trump was most certainly interested in.

Trump was also interested in stemming the corruption of the previous Ukrainian gov't.

Trump’s accusations during the Obama administration were investigated and debunked.

The point is that Trump is using a debunked conspiracy theory to smear the current Democrat front-runner (Biden) in the 2020 election. Further, he has used his power as President of the United States to pressure (extort, bribe?) a weak foreign leader (Ukraine’s president), to publicly commit to reopen the investigation. Trump doesn’t even care if they really investigate it—he just wanted the public statement. Then he was going to smear Biden with it in Tweets, rallies, reporter gaggles, etc., etc.

Politics are dirty, we all know that. But the President is prohibited by the Constitution for using his position as President for personal gain.

Why do you Republicans/conservatives not understand this very important and very simple concept?
 
Back
Top Bottom