• 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!

Schumer Slams McConnell's Proposed Senate Trial Rules: as Hell-Bent On Making It Much More Difficult

It is much easier to make an argument when one can make up "facts" and distort "the law," than to carry on a good faith discussion. My experience has been that those who actually understand the law, and are conversant with the actual facts, are far more inclined to pursue a fair trial, rather than the charade McConnell is trying to orchestrate.
 
MTAtech said:
I object to be called a "liar" for merely having a viewpoint disagreement with you. But that's par for the course with right-wingers.

Your claim that Parnas could have testified is flawed. Parnas refused to cooperate with the House when it counted. According to Wiki:
Click to expand...

Well, that is equal parts lies and misleading, as covered by the defense yesterday.

For one, there is, as covered many times, a remedy for the executive privilege claim, and that is to take it to court. Why didn't the House follow that path?

Secondly, the issue that the Trump legal team had with the subpoenas, and their letters produced in their opening arguments proved, is that the Schiff impeachment hearings were not started by a house vote, so the challenge was whether those subpoenas were even legal. They went to court on that and what did the Democrats do? Oh right, they backed down.

Now the remedy for the Democrats comedy of errors is for them to go back to the House and do it right, follow proper procedure, and not be little totalitarian **** birds... rather than demand that the case be investigated by the Senate at the trial.

I mean ****, the admission that this evidence might be crucial to their case only amplifies the prosecutions's argument, and mine, that the Democrats came to trial without a case.
 
jmotivator said:
This is true, and the Democrats don't have the correct version. The early tell was that they claimed they had all the evidence they needed, but then didn't even end the impeachment with articles that they said they had evidence for, including the Mueller investigation... and then they show up at the Senate demanding the Senate let them continue the investigation.

In short, they are full of ****.
Click to expand...

Don't you find the entire "Impachment Dog & Pony Show" rather boring?

I mean, it was pretty obvious that Mr. Trump was going to be impeached, in what was (essentially) a straight party line vote REGARDLESS of the evidence and it is pretty obvious that Mr. Trump is NOT going to be convicted in what will be (essentially) a straight party line vote REGARDLESS of the evidence.

You have to recognize that the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Their Guys") is that

"At the very first moment that it is first rumoured that there might conceivably be something that resembles an accusation of something that could possibly be considered to be faintly similar to an act that theoretically amounts to a breach of the law, then that person is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and any court finding otherwise is a perversion of justice."
​

this, of course, is in contrast to the rule regarding "presumption of innocence" (as applied to someone who might be a member/supporter of "Our Guys") which is

"Until such time as the person has been indicted, has been tried, has been convicted, has exhausted all appeals (regardless of how frivolous) without overturning the unjustly and illegally obtained verdict AND it has been 100% conclusively proved that there is a 0.00% chance that that unjust and illegally obtained verdict was NOT the result of a huge, vast, enormous, hidden, secret, covert, conspiracy to destroy America by making same-sex/inter-racial marriages mandatory, forcing women to have abortions, compelling fluoridation and vaccination, imposing Sherry Law, and making all the Cheerleaders wear Burke Hats, then the person is ***I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T***."
​

and that the definition of "different" is

"Something that is absolutely identical to something that 'THEIR SIDE' does and which I condemn but which is done by 'MY SIDE'.".
​
 
sjmay said:
Ordering her harmed, WTF is that about, holy crap, you got some serious derangement issues going on there, can you get back to reality please?
Click to expand...

Can you explain what it was he meant by 'Get rid of her.' It certainly wasn't fire her...because the guy he was telling to do this doesn't have the power to fire her....he was a foreigner with zero power to do anything about her working here.
 
jmotivator said:
This is true, and the Democrats don't have the correct version. The early tell was that they claimed they had all the evidence they needed, but then didn't even end the impeachment with articles that they said they had evidence for, including the Mueller investigation... and then they show up at the Senate demanding the Senate let them continue the investigation.

In short, they are full of ****.
Click to expand...

Bawhaha you said your version of truth which means essentially the twisted, warped reality Trumplicans live in. You guys aren't Republicans and don't even live by the principles that Reagan lived by....he has to be flipping in his grave right now.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What doesn't make any sense is how Mr. Trump went about engineering the removal of Ms. Yovanovitch ("‘Get rid of her:’ Trump calls for firing of former Ukraine ambassador in recording") since Ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the President" and all Mr. Trump had to do was to recall her and terminate her appointment.
Click to expand...

I can answer that! 1) Trump has no idea how government actually works, and 2) it appears that he probably didn't realize that "Yovanovich" was the AMERICAN Ambassador. I think, at the time, he thought she was Ukrainian.
 
NWRatCon said:
I can answer that! 1) Trump has no idea how government actually works, and 2) it appears that he probably didn't realize that "Yovanovich" was the AMERICAN Ambassador. I think, at the time, he thought she was Ukrainian.
Click to expand...

If he thought a US Ambassador was Ukrainian he needs to be removed as an incompetent fool.
 
ClaraD said:
If he thought a US Ambassador was Ukrainian he needs to be removed as an incompetent fool.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that.
 
Those who claim it wasn't a threat
"Get rid of her," Mr. Trump answered. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."
The words of Trump

At another point during the dinner, Mr. Trump says, "How's Ukraine doing? Don't ask," prompting laughter from those listening.
An unidentified man responds, "They love you, though." Mr. Trump described Ukrainians as "great fighters" and the same person then said "they're waiting for directions."
 
NWRatCon said:
Oh, I think they're very judicious about what they wish for...
Click to expand...
Perhaps. It's just that they don't carry it off so well. They should have wished for more honesty and competence.
 
ClaraD said:
Can you explain what it was he meant by 'Get rid of her.' It certainly wasn't fire her...because the guy he was telling to do this doesn't have the power to fire her....he was a foreigner with zero power to do anything about her working here.
Click to expand...
You don't even know whether it was truly said or not, much less what it means. You are being played.
 
ClaraD said:
Those who claim it wasn't a threat
"Get rid of her," Mr. Trump answered. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."
The words of Trump

At another point during the dinner, Mr. Trump says, "How's Ukraine doing? Don't ask," prompting laughter from those listening.
An unidentified man responds, "They love you, though." Mr. Trump described Ukrainians as "great fighters" and the same person then said "they're waiting for directions."
Click to expand...

So, why would the guy say that they are "waiting for directions" if, as you claim, Trump already directed them to kill her?

Do you think he was including her family too? I mean, Trump likes to go all the way, so when he puts hits on people (maybe you can list those he's had murdered) he might want to get the family too, to send a message.
 
Anthony60 said:
So, why would the guy say that they are "waiting for directions" if, as you claim, Trump already directed them to kill her?

Do you think he was including her family too? I mean, Trump likes to go all the way, so when he puts hits on people (maybe you can list those he's had murdered) he might want to get the family too, to send a message.
Click to expand...

I often wonder about those burnt-out, criminal loving hippies than defended Charles Manson?

Always anti-law-enforcement, "Free Mumia" OJ-is-innocent and all that BS?

Where did they go wrong?

:confused:
 
Anthony60 said:
So, why would the guy say that they are "waiting for directions" if, as you claim, Trump already directed them to kill her?

Do you think he was including her family too? I mean, Trump likes to go all the way, so when he puts hits on people (maybe you can list those he's had murdered) he might want to get the family too, to send a message.
Click to expand...

The waiting for directions was his comment on Ukraine waiting for him to tell them what to do in reference to the Bidens
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What doesn't make any sense is how Mr. Trump went about engineering the removal of Ms. Yovanovitch ("‘Get rid of her:’ Trump calls for firing of former Ukraine ambassador in recording") since Ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the President" and all Mr. Trump had to do was to recall her and terminate her appointment.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of how Trump fires someone the Democrats will see nefarious undertones.

But generally the President doesn't out-process exiting Ambassadors, and that process falls on his subordinates, namely the Secretary of State and the Chief of Staff.
 
jmotivator said:
As the defense case hinted at, the key questions that should be asked regarding the House impeachment process is:

1) Why did Pelosi not authorize a vote to grant subpoena power to Schiff's investigation and...
Click to expand...

This idea that there had to be some sort of formal vote in the House just for the purpose of subpoenaing documents and witnesses related to Trump's impeachment is a red herring. This is not something that must take place just for the purpose of impeachment.

Furthermore, the House committees already had subpoena power when they began investigating Trump. The 2018 incoming House adopted rules which granted House committee chairs broad subpoena authority, and this aspect of those rules was a change the GOP implemented in 2015 to go after the Obama administration.

Why did the House choose to make the investigation purely partisan, rather than authorizing a special counsel?
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the special counsel laws related to how the DOJ appoints and approves a special counsel that is not something the House would do. That is something AG Barr would do, and that is a good question. Why has Barr not appointed a special counsel for this?

Congress could have created some sort of special commission to do the investigation but the problem here is that there was generally no willingness on the part of the Republicans to do any investigation at all so I do not know how the outcome would have been any different. Republicans would have treated the information generated by a special commission exactly the same way they have treated the information generated by the House committees. If your sole concern is investigating Biden the Senate has already had the power to investigate Biden, on its own terms, since 2015, but it hasn't. Why is that? You would think given all the discussion there would be some sort of ongoing investigation about Biden, but there still is not. Why is that?

Why is the House responsible for calling witnesses Trump has blocked, for special counsels, the DOJ must approve, and for Senate investigations, it has no control over? That does not make any sense. Why does Trump have no responsibility for anything? Why do Republicans have no responsibility for anything?

Republicans argue for bipartisanship but they are doing everything in the most partisan way possible. Under these circumstances how is the truth revealed?
 
ClaraD said:
Good lord, yes I know it was said...everyone heard the recording on live television.
Click to expand...
You heard the recording on TV and believe it to be authentic. Not much to debate then, or what it even means. But we should also consider the source.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
You heard the recording on TV and believe it to be authentic. Not much to debate then, or what it even means. But we should also consider the source.
Click to expand...

They also have a live video that clearly shows Trump with Lev Parnas the night the audio was recorded
 
Last edited:
ClaraD said:
The waiting for directions was his comment on Ukraine waiting for him to tell them what to do in reference to the Bidens
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So, you think he might put out another hit on the Bidens, then? You forgot the list of previous hits he's had done. Totally believable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom