Opening Pandora's box

[eohrnberger]

1. The Honorable Adam Schiff is really full of himself now. He is enjoying the glory. I bet you dollars to donuts that he will someday run for president.

2. Speaking at a meeting of Dems here in California, he called the President of the United States a "charlatan," as the attendees cheered.

3. A former prosecutor, the scary-looking Mr. Schiff is a zealot who is a perfect example of hubris.

4. Hopefully, FATE will put him in his place.

"charlatan,"? It is well known that Democrats accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Attorney General Barr accuses the left of systemic 'sabotage' of Trump administration
By Paulina Dedaj | Fox News
Attorney General Barr accuses the left of systemic '''sabotage''' of Trump administration | Fox News

Attorney General Bill Barr accused congressional Democrats Friday of “using every tool” to “sabotage” the Trump administration by setting a “dangerous” precedent in implying that the government is illegitimate.

During a speech at the Federalist Society’s dinner in Washington, Barr took aim at the “resistance,” accusing liberal lawmakers of attacking the very foundations of the Constitution.

“I deeply admire the American presidency as a political and constitutional institution,” he began. “Unfortunately over the past several decades, we have seen a steady encroachment on executive authority by the other branches of the government.”

Barr said the “avalanche of subpoenas” and constant attempt to derail appointments by the Trump administration have only served to “incapacitate” the executive branch.

“Immediately after President Trump won the election, opponents inaugurated what they called the ‘resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.”

So with the Precedence the Democrats have set, we can expect bogus presidential impeachments whenever the House and the White House are in different political majorities?

I don't think the Democrats realize (or worse, realize but don't care - more likely I think) how badly they've damaged the Nation, the Republic and their future with this politically driven political theater of theirs.

 

[vegas giants]

"charlatan,"? It is well known that Democrats accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.



So with the Precedence the Democrats have set, we can expect bogus presidential impeachments whenever the House and the White House are in different political majorities?

I don't think the Democrats realize (or worse, realize but don't care - more likely I think) how badly they've damaged the Nation, the Republic and their future with this politically driven political theater of theirs.

Everytime the president engages in bribery we should impeach him

 

[What if...?]

Actually this is a great demonstration of the fact that democrats run on feelings, and not logic. They are totally attracted to what feels good today. They almost NEVER think about what feels good good today, may bite them in the ass tomorrow???????

A Senate trial at the least will totally embarrass democrats, and at the most expose them as the Washington Swamp!!!

I think it was Sun Tzu who said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".

When your opponent's messaging takes the form of warnings that you will lose unless you stop doing "x", then you should definitely continue to do "x".

 

[Irwin Corey]

Democrats including especially the would be dictator Schiff are opening in fact what will be a Panora's box for them. Schiff and his clown crew in the House may think they are having great fun at the expense of the President.

But do they have any view of what will happen if they vote a bill of impeachment and it is sent to the Senate. The Republicans are in charge there, and pay backs will be hell!!!!! It is basically a trial, and the Republicans can call ANYONE they want to. They will call many of the members of the corrupt criminal Obama admin. That could include Schiff, Hillary, and Obama himself!!!!!!

So---------------the big question is will Schiff and the democrat dare to go down that trail? IMO they would be far better off if they call off this dog and pony show they have going, and let well enough alone.

Comments?

Calling Chairman Schiff a dictator only emphasizes your already obvious bias. Impeachment is serious business, no one (except, possibly, jim Jordan) on the House Select Intelligence Committee is having "fun". In fact they have been forced into this inquiry by the president.

That aside IF tRump is impeached and there is a trial in the Senate it will not be a free for all expose on all the past precived ills of anyone that has ever held office. There will be "Articles of Impeachment", any witness and evidence brought forth will have to address those "Articles" and show relevance. You're being extraordinarily naïve if you suppose that John Roberts will allow a Senate trial to devolve into a Republican free for all of what about's

Trump should be thankful the founders had the vision to put impeachment into the Constitution, and since he believes he's innocent he should be cooperating with Congress to prove his innocence. As it stands his continued un-cooperation and blocking of subpoenas is only going to add to the Articles brought against him; which he will have to relevantly defend.

 

[Thoreau72]

Everytime the president engages in bribery we should impeach him

Good Grief, by that standard you would have to impeach the entire federal government.

 

[eohrnberger]

Jordan summarized the "four facts" in a tweet:

• President Trump and President Zelensky both say there was no pressure
• The transcript shows no conditionality
• Ukraine didn’t know aid was held back at time of the call
• Ukraine never took any of the actions they were supposedly being pressured to take

The accusations of bribery or extortion are not demonstrated and are hollow and unfounded accusations. The 4 facts listed above demonstrate it didn't happen.

 

[Helix]

But in this impeachment case where are blow jobs called out or mentioned?

All tho I will admit Schiff is full of himself and a blow hard!!!!

we have to keep extortion of a foreign country using congressionally appropriated military aid in perspective. after all, it isn't lying about a blow job.

 

[vegas giants]

Good Grief, by that standard you would have to impeach the entire federal government.

No. Only those that engage in bribery

 

[Thoreau72]

No. Only those that engage in bribery

Lobbyists and elected representatives engage in bribery all the time. The lobbyist offers the bribe, and the congresscritter enables and accepts the bribe in writing legislation that works in the favor of special interests. That doesn't even count the military side of it.

The entire federal government should be impeached by your standard.

 

[j brown's body]

Barr doesnt seem to realize that impeachment is in the Constitution.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Democrats including especially the would be dictator Schiff are opening in fact what will be a Panora's box for them. Schiff and his clown crew in the House may think they are having great fun at the expense of the President.

But do they have any view of what will happen if they vote a bill of impeachment and it is sent to the Senate. The Republicans are in charge there, and pay backs will be hell!!!!! It is basically a trial, and the Republicans can call ANYONE they want to. They will call many of the members of the corrupt criminal Obama admin. That could include Schiff, Hillary, and Obama himself!!!!!!

So---------------the big question is will Schiff and the democrat dare to go down that trail? IMO they would be far better off if they call off this dog and pony show they have going, and let well enough alone.

Comments?

As others in this thread have added, you are showing a terrible ignorance of what the Senate does with the Impeachment process.

The Senate does have plenty of latitude in the determination of rules for the trial, but the governance of the charges themselves are determined by the Articles of Impeachment. It will read as a listing of charges and an outline of actions that the President must defend against, and it will take much more than whataboutism efforts by the Senate in some bastardization effort for whoever Republicans can get their hands on.

Assuming this gets that far the actual trial part will have to include witnesses and statements offered that have some relevance to the charges outlined.

No matter if in support of the charges or in defense of the President, what the Senate cannot do is take the Articles of Impeachment and turn the trial into a matter targeting someone else. In the Senate this will play out like a trial (even though it is not an actual criminal proceeding.) The 'procession' (for lack of a better way to put it) will call their witnesses and so will the 'defense,' there will be cross examination of those witnesses, and of course the evaluation of the evidence offered by both sides. It may act like a civil trial with elements of a criminal trail but the only real result is deliberations and a vote to remove from office or not. That is it.

What the Senate cannot do is tell either side which witnesses to call, nor can the Senate on their own alter the either side's argument on the matter outlined by the Articles of Impeachment.

All Trump has to do is moderately prepare his defense, as it is unlikely the Republican majority Senate will do vote to remove him no matter what is offered in support of charges.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Good Grief, by that standard you would have to impeach the entire federal government.

Bull ****, BUT even IF that were the case … we should get started; unless we no longer want Government FOR, BY and OF the People.

 

[joko104]

The Democrats really don't have any choice. The president's efforts to corrupt (a) our foreign policy, (b) our electoral process and (c) separation of powers simply cannot go unaddressed.

He got away with encouraging Russia to help him, now he got caught forcing Ukraine to help him.

It just gets worse and worse, and will continue to get worse unless he is held accountable.

I bet you're just mad because Trump didn't continue Obama's policy of giving Russia ALL of Ukraine and the M.E.

 

[ttwtt78640]

i hope that they don't find that someone lied about a blow job. that could get pretty serious fast.

You seem to be viewing this as some sort of well deserved (highly partisan?) payback. The (off topic?) reference to Bill Clinton's impeachment is interesting because felony perjury was not only proven, it was openly admitted to, yet the Senate decided that removal from office was not sufficiently warranted despite obvious guilt.

If not for the constant attempts to find some (any?) crime worthy of Trump's impeachment, I would take this latest (last minute?) attempt to "IMPEACH 45!" much more seriously. Using the Bill Clinton standard (precedent?) of "yes there was solid evidence of a felony charge, but he is our POTUS and should (shall?) remain so", I see that as complete justification for just such a partisan payback.

After all, impeachment is 100% a political process - since charges can be put forth with only (or mostly) partisan support then such charges, even if proven as being with merit, admittedly true and valid to the letter of the law, can be dismissed with only (or mostly) partisan support.

 

[Logical1]

Calling Chairman Schiff a dictator only emphasizes your already obvious bias. Impeachment is serious business, no one (except, possibly, jim Jordan) on the House Select Intelligence Committee is having "fun". In fact they have been forced into this inquiry by the president.

That aside IF tRump is impeached and there is a trial in the Senate it will not be a free for all expose on all the past precived ills of anyone that has ever held office. There will be "Articles of Impeachment", any witness and evidence brought forth will have to address those "Articles" and show relevance. You're being extraordinarily naïve if you suppose that John Roberts will allow a Senate trial to devolve into a Republican free for all of what about's

Trump should be thankful the founders had the vision to put impeachment into the Constitution, and since he believes he's innocent he should be cooperating with Congress to prove his innocence. As it stands his continued un-cooperation and blocking of subpoenas is only going to add to the Articles brought against him; which he will have to relevantly defend.

Yes dictator. Have you noticed how he does not let republican invite who they want to question, and how Schiff wont let republican speak freely???

 

[rjay]

Actually this is a great demonstration of the fact that democrats run on feelings, and not logic. They are totally attracted to what feels good today. They almost NEVER think about what feels good good today, may bite them in the ass tomorrow???????

A Senate trial at the least will totally embarrass democrats, and at the most expose them as the Washington Swamp!!!

That(bolded) was rich. This impeachment is about a President's potential abuse of power. Abuse of power for satisfaction 'today' with no concern for long term implications. If this impeachment process fails we will be expanding Presidential powers. We will be telling a future democratic President that deals can be made with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to get to the bottom if financial deals done between these countries and members of the Trump family. Information that can be used to charge Trump and various members of his family.

Is that the America you want to see?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes dictator. Have you noticed how he does not let republican invite who they want to question, and how Schiff wont let republican speak freely???

The gop can do whatever they want at trial

 

[ttwtt78640]

As others in this thread have added, you are showing a terrible ignorance of what the Senate does with the Impeachment process.

The Senate does have plenty of latitude in the determination of rules for the trial, but the governance of the charges themselves are determined by the Articles of Impeachment. It will read as a listing of charges and an outline of actions that the President must defend against, and it will take much more than whataboutism efforts by the Senate in some bastardization effort for whoever Republicans can get their hands on.

Assuming this gets that far the actual trial part will have to include witnesses and statements offered that have some relevance to the charges outlined.

No matter if in support of the charges or in defense of the President, what the Senate cannot do is take the Articles of Impeachment and turn the trial into a matter targeting someone else. In the Senate this will play out like a trial (even though it is not an actual criminal proceeding.) The 'procession' (for lack of a better way to put it) will call their witnesses and so will the 'defense,' there will be cross examination of those witnesses, and of course the evaluation of the evidence offered by both sides. It may act like a civil trial with elements of a criminal trail but the only real result is deliberations and a vote to remove from office or not. That is it.

What the Senate cannot do is tell either side which witnesses to call, nor can the Senate on their own alter the either side's argument on the matter outlined by the Articles of Impeachment.

All Trump has to do is moderately prepare his defense, as it is unlikely the Republican majority Senate will do vote to remove him no matter what is offered in support of charges.

I disagree that specific evidence of corruption and self dealing by Joe Biden (and son) in Ukraine are "off limits" as a valid defense since the main charge is precisely that Trump's totally unfounded self dealing (by virtue of Joe Biden's current political status alone?) made the (temporary) withholding of Ukrainian aid illegal.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Yes dictator. Have you noticed how he does not let republican invite who they want to question, and how Schiff wont let republican speak freely???

Again, Mr. naïve, Chairman Schiff is limiting witness's, testimony and evidence to relevance to the inquiry of tRumps possible impeachment, as he should. Not allowing the republican's to bring in witness's that have no relevance to the "impeachment" hearing is his DUTY. If the Republicans want to bring charges against V.P. Biden and his son then they have a very cooperative William Barr to do that for them.

He's not letting the Republicans break the Rules of Order, developed by a pervious Republican majority, and have the hearing devolve into a progression of side shows designed to obfuscate the serious charges and evidence being brought forth.

 

[Helix]

You seem to be viewing this as some sort of well deserved (highly partisan?) payback. The (off topic?) reference to Bill Clinton's impeachment is interesting because felony perjury was not only proven, it was openly admitted to, yet the Senate decided that removal from office was not sufficiently warranted despite obvious guilt.

If not for the constant attempts to find some (any?) crime worthy of Trump's impeachment, I would take this latest (last minute?) attempt to "IMPEACH 45!" much more seriously. Using the Bill Clinton standard (precedent?) of "yes there was solid evidence of a felony charge, but he is our POTUS and should (shall?) remain so", I see that as complete justification for just such a partisan payback.

After all, impeachment is 100% a political process - since charges can be put forth with only (or mostly) partisan support then such charges, even if proven as being with merit, admittedly true and valid to the letter of the law, can be dismissed with only (or mostly) partisan support.

he extorted a foreign country using congressionally appropriated military funds to generate dirt on a political opponent. that's definitely more serious than lying about a blow job.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I disagree that specific evidence of corruption and self dealing by Joe Biden (and son) in Ukraine are "off limits" as a valid defense since the main charge is precisely that Trump's totally unfounded self dealing (by virtue of Joe Biden's current political status alone?) made the (temporary) withholding of Ukrainian aid illegal.

From a perspective of defense for Trump, they would have to demonstrate that Joe Biden all on his own withheld funding to Ukraine for political benefit here. And that would be a tall order since at the time of that issue everyone from the US, to just about every nation in Europe, to the IMF, to the UN itself wanted Viktor Shokin out of there. Not apples to apples no matter how Republicans try to spin that it is.

My point to the OP is how a trail plays out in the Senate allows for perhaps some political shenanigans but at the end the day the presentation of evidence has to have some relevance to the Articles of Impeachment charges and statements.

A free-for-all approach to this by Republicans would be, in my opinion, just as politically damaging to them as voting to keep Trump in office despite the evidence of the charges (again, assuming this gets that far and I am not convinced it will.)

 

[ttwtt78640]

he extorted a foreign country using congressionally appropriated military funds to generate dirt on a political opponent. that's definitely more serious than lying about a blow job.

That (bolded above) is certainly a valid personal opinion, yet it is up to the House alone to define (list?) alleged impeachable offenses and up to the Senate alone to decide whether those charges (even if 'proven' true or confessed to) warrant removing the sitting POTUS from office, some lesser punishment or no action at all.

Keep in mind that the Senate is a very partisan (thus likely biased) jury pool, yet they have the complete constitutional power to decide what (if any) action will be taken - just as the House can (and likely will) level such charges (articles of impeachment) on a very partisan (thus likely biased) basis.

 

[Helix]

That (bolded above) is certainly a valid personal opinion, yet it is up to the House alone to define (list?) alleged impeachable offenses and up to the Senate alone to decide whether those charges (even if 'proven' true or confessed to) warrant removing the sitting POTUS from office, some lesser punishment or no action at all.

Keep in mind that the Senate is a very partisan (thus likely biased) jury pool, yet they have the complete constitutional power to decide what (if any) action will be taken - just as the House can (and likely will) level such charges (articles of impeachment) on a very partisan (thus likely biased) basis.

the non-bolded part seems a lot more serious to anyone capable of forming an opinion, if that person is being honest.

 

[TheParser]

I don't think the Democrats realize (or worse, realize but don't care - more likely I think) how badly they've damaged the Nation, the Republic and their future with this politically driven political theater of theirs.

I agree 100%.

Maybe, just maybe, the Honorable Speaker of the House knew that impeachment hearings were a bad idea, but the dear old lady could not resist pressure from people like the glory hound Adam Schiff, Esq. and those four silly individuals styled the Crew by their adoring fans.

 

[ttwtt78640]

From a perspective of defense for Trump, they would have to demonstrate that Joe Biden all on his own withheld funding to Ukraine[/b] for political benefit here. And that would be a tall order since at the time of that issue everyone from the US, to just about every nation in Europe, to the IMF, to the UN itself wanted Viktor Shokin out of there. Not apples to apples no matter how Republicans try to spin that it is.

My point to the OP is how a trail plays out in the Senate allows for perhaps some political shenanigans but at the end the day the presentation of evidence has to have some relevance to the Articles of Impeachment charges and statements.

A free-for-all approach to this by Republicans would be, in my opinion, just as politically damaging to them as voting to keep Trump in office despite the evidence of the charges (again, assuming this gets that far and I am not convinced it will.)

Nope, all the US Senators have to allege (completely to their own satisfaction, BTW) is that there was a reasonable suspicion of corruption (self dealing) involving Joe and/or Hunter Biden and it would be quite proper to withhold (and/or delay) US aid pending its full investigation. That would reduce the alleged offense to not having properly notified congress (in a timely manner) of the Trump administration's actions or their reasons for taking them. The problem is that Schiff refuses to allow that line of defense to be pursued in his House impeachment "inquiry" process.

The fact that Viktor Shokin was corrupt does not, in any way, mean that Joe and/or Hunter Biden was not corrupt in pushing through USAID funds destined for Burisma which just happened to employ Hunter Biden (and his business partner?) in an extremely lucrative, "make work" job requiring no onsite presence or specific job duties. Joe Biden's ridiculous claim that he had no idea who his son (and his business partner?) was working for (or what that "job" entailed) does not pass the smell test since even Schiff's "witnesses" were well aware of that situation's 'questionable appearance' with Burisma getting substantial USAID funding.