• 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!

Pelosi: House will move to transmit impeachment articles next week

Helix said:
I hope that you're right. Tweety should have been subpoenaed, though.
Click to expand...


Still should be, a democratic Senate subpoenaed Clinton over a blowjob and held a full trial.

If we dont see the same done for actual high crimes and misdemeanors we know the Republicans fixed it and it was a cover up, not a trial...
 
GDViking said:
Still should be, a democratic Senate subpoenaed Clinton over a blowjob and held a full trial.

If we dont see the same done for actual high crimes and misdemeanors we know the Republicans fixed it and it was a cover up, not a trial...
Click to expand...

We probably already know that, but I agree.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and if they were to get Trump to testify under oath, they'd have him on perjury for sure. He just opens his mouth, and lies come out.
Click to expand...

A trial is not where you develop evidence, it is where you present it. The House heard enough evidence to indict the president, now you guys are all complaining that there needs to be more evidence. If there was enough for the House to indict, then why would the Senate need more evidence to render its verdict. The time to build your case was BEFORE the impeachment vote, not after. And the idea that Trump would ever be called to testify is lunacy.
 
GDViking said:
Still should be, a democratic Senate subpoenaed Clinton over a blowjob and held a full trial.

If we dont see the same done for actual high crimes and misdemeanors we know the Republicans fixed it and it was a cover up, not a trial...
Click to expand...

Clinton was subpoenaed?
 
Fletch said:
A trial is not where you develop evidence, it is where you present it. The House heard enough evidence to indict the president, now you guys are all complaining that there needs to be more evidence. If there was enough for the House to indict, then why would the Senate need more evidence to render its verdict. The time to build your case was BEFORE the impeachment vote, not after. And the idea that Trump would ever be called to testify is lunacy.
Click to expand...

Hearsay? No first hand witnesses? Ring a bell?
 
GDViking said:
This is true, however if they go for the sham trial the 70% of americans who actually want the truth will recognize just how corrupt the right is...

Polosis delay brought the fact that Republicans not only do not the truth but Moscow Mich just last week signed a petition to drop charges.

Yeah this is going to be a fair trial...
Click to expand...

It' pretty clear that they don't want the truth. A lot of the prominent Republicans know the truth, but if they speak it, they're likely to lose the next election. It's not that they're bad people, they just want to be reelected. The problem is, so many voters have been conned by the fraud in chief.
 
Fletch said:
A trial is not where you develop evidence, it is where you present it. The House heard enough evidence to indict the president, now you guys are all complaining that there needs to be more evidence. If there was enough for the House to indict, then why would the Senate need more evidence to render its verdict. The time to build your case was BEFORE the impeachment vote, not after. And the idea that Trump would ever be called to testify is lunacy.
Click to expand...
If you think efforts to gain more evidence stops once the indictment is written and presented to a grand jury, you are insane. The DA's office and the police continue to interview witnesses and they continue to ask for warrants and continue to follow the trails those law enforcement activities lead, all the way through to closing statements. If they uncover more they inform opposing council and the court of the new evidence to ensure proper discovery and adequate notice or amend their witness list or recall those that already testified. There is a process for this because newly discovered evidence that is relevant and material can only serve the interest of justice, if it is admitted and scrutinized. It cannot serve the interest of justice if it is ignored.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It' pretty clear that they don't want the truth. A lot of the prominent Republicans know the truth, but if they speak it, they're likely to lose the next election. It's not that they're bad people, they just want to be reelected. The problem is, so many voters have been conned by the fraud in chief.
Click to expand...

I doubt there are more than a few who don't know the truth. Half the MAGA crowd knows the truth. They may be in denial, but they know.
 
btthegreat said:
If you think efforts to gain more evidence stops once the indictment is written and presented to a grand jury, you are insane. The DA's office and the police continue to interview witnesses and they continue to ask for warrants and continue to follow the trails those law enforcement activities lead, all the way through to closing statements. If they uncover more they inform opposing council and the court of the new evidence to ensure proper discovery and adequate notice or amend their witness list or recall those that already testified. There is a process for this because newly discovered evidence that is relevant and material can only serve the interest of justice, if it is admitted and scrutinized. It cannot serve the interest of justice if it is ignored.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there has even been more evidence found since the impeachment, are they not supposed to present those emails or question the people who wrote them???
 
btthegreat said:
If you think efforts to gain more evidence stops once the indictment is written and presented to a grand jury, you are insane. The DA's office and the police continue to interview witnesses and they continue to ask for warrants and continue to follow the trails those law enforcement activities lead, all the way through to closing statements. If they uncover more they inform opposing council and the court of the new evidence to ensure proper discovery and adequate notice or amend their witness list or recall those that already testified. There is a process for this because newly discovered evidence that is relevant and material can only serve the interest of justice, if it is admitted and scrutinized. It cannot serve the interest of justice if it is ignored.
Click to expand...

Youve watched too much Perry Mason. If you think any DA would have brought these charges before interviewing the 4 key witnesses, youre crazy. The House didnt do its job. I dont expect anyone on the left to ever admit, let alone understand that, but thats what happened.
 
GDViking said:
Exactly, there has even been more evidence found since the impeachment, are they not supposed to present those emails or question the people who wrote them???
Click to expand...

Thats not whats being discussed Here, Any new evidence the House uncovers can be presented during the trial. What you guys want is for the senate to do the work the house should have done. Thats not going to happen. If these witnesses are so vital then the impeachment vote should not have happened until they testified. Your side blew it by rushing this but you are way to partisan to ever admit your tribe F'ed up.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
"I would like you to do us a favor though..."
Click to expand...

Is not a friggen crime. past presidents have done favors for other countries.
we have done favors for countries.

if you want to go with that standard every president in the history should have been impeached.
asking for a favor is not an impeachment qualifying discussion.

also there is no mention as to what the favor is. so assuming that it is a crime is simply called speculation.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes. Exactly. And sorry if I earlier may have been insulting in my delivery.

But in reality, the People (House) can impeach for whatever they determine is impeachable. It can be, "Hey we made a mistake with this guy!". There were no federal U.S. statutes at the time the Constitution was penned and ratified, because the government was yet to be formed! So there are no defined "high crimes & misdemeanors". When the President is charged with something like "Abuse of Power", that itself is the crime.

Well, yes. The founders set this up so it would be easy to charge the President, but difficult to remove him. And they specified that the Senate Trial, though not the House investigation - except for the impeachment vote, to be made public.

The rationale here seems to be it is relatively easy to investigate & charge in the House, where the charges then become made open to the public with a trial further enlightening the public in the Senate, requiring a higher bar for removal after the evidence has been heard byall in the form of a trial. So in essence, the "People" complain and the Senate takes a close public look at it with a high bar. Quite honestly, I think it's a great system.

Now as to opposing parties impeaching in the future, that will have to be determined. But impeachment is the ultimate political expression of the People. And in this case by putting Dems in charge of their House, it seems to be the will of the People. The will of the People will ultimately prevail regardless, though. If the People's will was not for their House impeaching, the People will remove those impeaching representatives from office. So 2020 House races will tell you exactly how the citizens of the country are feeling about this!

But I'd like to close with one more note. The House more accurately reflects the distribution of the citizens, than does the Senate or the results of the electoral college. This was seen in 2016 with the differences between the EC & popular vote totals. Quite frankly, this is why we see such political differences between the House and Senate. And it may continue if Trump wins the E.C., but loses "the People" again. In that case, I don't see anyway for there not to be further conflict.
Click to expand...

Nothing but a partisan justification for being uber-partisan. The founding fathers specifically stated "high crimes and misdemeanors" and went on to set a 2/3's bar to remove a president just so that cheeseburger nonsense wouldn't happen.
 
Michael Cole said:
Lol. Federal finance law? WTFIT?

We're talking about The Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Here's an article.

Give it a read.

I'll get you started.

Deferrals

The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.

The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

The bold is mine
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand what you are talking about and miss a key piece to the puzzle. When a funding bill is passed, the money is intended to be spent by END OF FISCAL YEAR, that is the spending deadline unless the funding bill gives a different date. So, the funding for Ukraine was meant to be spent by END OF FISCAL YEAR, that was the deadline. If the funding is not going to be dispersed in whole by END OF FISCAL YEAR the agency is required to file notice with the Congress that the money had not been spent and request an extension on the disbursement. That is the legal obligation.

The administration did, in fact, notify congress that there was a delay in dispersing the funds and requested an extension, which Congress granted. Schiff's own witness testified to this fact.

Moreover, since the Ukrainians have stated that they didn't even know about the delay in funding, you can't claim that the money was being delayed to force anything out of the Ukrainians.

Those are the actual facts of the case. So unless you can show that the Ukrainian funding was given a dispersal deadline other than END OF FISCAL YEAR, the disbursal of payments was within the bounds of the law and proper notice was given to congress.
 
Fletch said:
Youve watched too much Perry Mason. If you think any DA would have brought these charges before interviewing the 4 key witnesses, youre crazy. The House didnt do its job. I dont expect anyone on the left to ever admit, let alone understand that, but thats what happened.
Click to expand...
Perry Mason does not provide solutions to this scenario.
 
Michael Cole said:
Yes, it involves regulations as well. I'm not a big fan myself, but I don't think the market, left to itself, is capable of finding solutions.

Yes, thank you. Don't mean to derail.
Click to expand...

Regulations are a problem for sure.
But just saying "too many regulations" misses the bigger picture.
They are what are used to establish and grow control which is the bigger picture.
CO2 regulations were seen as something that could be used to frighten people into compliance.
 
Michael Cole said:
Well, we can derail a post or two more.

Yes, though it's been years since I've read any reports. The opposition has often claimed a global conspiracy, which is impossible to believe.
Click to expand...

The surveys that show the various "97% of climate scientists say" were conducted by now famous alarmists using very unscientific methods.
The papers surveyed weren't all written by "climate scientists", the papers selected were not a representative sample, some of the papers were assumed to have taken positions, survey takers drew conclusions based on abstracts alone, & papers were misrepresented by the survey takers.
Voila, 97%.
Surveys of "scientists" themselves were similarly flawed.
 
Moderate Right said:
Nothing but a partisan justification for being uber-partisan. The founding fathers specifically stated "high crimes and misdemeanors" and went on to set a 2/3's bar to remove a president just so that cheeseburger nonsense wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the House is reflecting the desires and doing the work of the American People.
 
Chomsky said:
Regardless, the House is reflecting the desires and doing the work of the American People.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They're reflecting the desires of the House. Are you now saying that since Trump was elected president everything he does or wants to do is reflecting the desires and doing the work of the American People?
 
Moderate Right said:
No they aren't. They're reflecting the desires of the House. Are you now saying that since Trump was elected president everything he does or wants to do is reflecting the desires and doing the work of the American People?
Click to expand...

It reflects the desires of roughly 1/3 of voters who remain steadfastly pro Trump regardless of what he may say or do.
 
Moderate Right said:
No they aren't. They're reflecting the desires of the House.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are! The House is apportioned by "proportional representation", as specified by Article One. Which is why it's often called "The Peoples' House", and Senate in turn is called "The States' House".

Are you now saying that since Trump was elected president everything he does or wants to do is reflecting the desires and doing the work of the American People?
Click to expand...
Technically, 'no'. Trump was not elected by "the people", but rather by the Electoral College - as can be seen by it over-riding the popular (People's) vote. In fact, this Electoral College effect is playing a large part in the country's unrest. And I fear it may occur again in 2020, really setting things off.

Our founders specified:

1] House represents the People
2] Senate represent the States
3] President works for both, via Congress

And right now, the People don't want him.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, they are! The House is apportioned by "proportional representation", as specified by Article One. Which is why it's often called "The Peoples' House", and Senate in turn is called "The States' House".

Technically, 'no'. Trump was not elected by "the people", but rather by the Electoral College - as can be seen by it over-riding the popular (People's) vote. In fact, this Electoral College effect is playing a large part in the country's unrest. And I fear it may occur again in 2020, really setting things off.

Our founders specified:

1] House represents the People
2] Senate represent the States
3] President works for both, via Congress

And right now, the People don't want him.
Click to expand...
Who taught you that the electoral over-rides the peoples vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom