Process Question

[Olddemocrat]

Obviously not. But thanks for sharing the talking point.

Not a talking point. Verifiable fact! Plain as the nose on your face.

 

[ocean515]

Not a talking point. Verifiable fact! Plain as the nose on your face.

Apparently you don't know what a nose looks like.

Graham introduces resolution condemning House impeachment process - KRDO

 

[Luckyone]

I have nothing to get over, my candidate WON. Even if he hadn't, I wouldn't have responded by spending the next 4 years acting like a entitled and spoiled child.

Trump's victory made Democrats and their supporters miserable. How is that a mistake and why on Earth would I regret it ?

let me give you 31 reasons why we all regret it

1) Declaring a Trade War with China and ignoring history.
2) Failure to give China a "dignity" out when China was willing to sign a new trade agreement.
3) Closing the Government for 34 days without accomplishing anything.
4) Losing 63 cases (versus winning 4) in Federal Courts. Normal winning percentage of Presidents winning in Federal Courts is 70%.
5) Declaring a National Emergency in the border crisis and getting nothing accomplished.
6) Promising Infrastructure spending and delivering nothing.
7) Mexico not paying for wall.
8) Failure to hire and/or keep knowledgeable people for the administration.
9) Utter and consistent chaos in WH.
10) Disunity of country at all time highs.
11) Failure to work toward balancing the budget. All-time high debt.
12) Promising a new Health Care program and delivering nothing.
13) Not unifying the world but creating dislike of the U.S. with our allies and lack of interest to help.
14) Over 270 important administration positions left unfilled.
15) No consistent approach to anything, flip-flopping constantly.
16) Meeting with Putin without anyone around to note what was said.
17) Not supporting and therefore making our most important institutions (FBI, CIA, Justice Dept) weak.
18) Picking the wrong countries for the travel ban.
19) Working to weakening our Constitution (rather than strengthen it)
20) Making our disaster relief a joke (throwing paper rolls at Puerto Ricans)
21) Talking about a disaster and getting the name of the location wrong (Pleasure vs Paradise).
22) Lying all the time, even when not useful.
23) Asking about using Nuclear Weapons to combat hurricanes.
24) Using government funds (our money) for personal benefit.
25) Saying air quality has improved when the opposite is true.
26) Helping to cover or ignore a Saudi murder (kashoggi)
27) Trump tweets about the wisdom of Mussolini.
28) The "buck stops over there". Does not take responsibility for any of his decisions. Blames others.
29) Makes constant mistakes about quoting law.
30) Makes "gut" decisions without considering the consequences.

 

[Luckyone]

I am a Dem since stevenson and I am stunned that you would say (no matter how it is achieved). Did you read that before you posted it?

New rules apply. Trump has changed the playing field and if we don't play by his rules, justice will not win. Justice is barred from the area.

It is never wrong when the goal is to discover truth. With a president, truth is the ultimate goal, especially when the president does not believe in it.

 

[Drawdown]

Of course not. Why offer evidence when a bald assertion will do?

You can google it yourself as well.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The Republican Trump supporters are attacking the impeachment inquiry process in an attempt to disrupt and discredit the impeachment of Trump.

For the sake of this OP alone, let us say that the Republicans are right regarding the process (which they are not and in the link below you will see why not).

My question to all Trump supporters is "what happens if the investigation and subsequent publicly-aired impeachment does uncover impeachable wrong doing by Trump? Would the process in uncovering the truth be of any importance? Is not the truth and the facts that are important?"

What you are unwilling to learn is that the impeachment process as the democrackpots are running it now is what would only be expected in a third world dictatorship. They are running it behind closed doors and refusing any republicans participating in the process. As they are interviewing so-called witnesses/whistleblowers and not getting what they want, they are taking a sentence here or there and leaking it to the press with no context. And they are doing that without a full vote of the House. It's not a real impeachment inquiry. If it were, there would be a full house vote and every representative in either party could bring or cross examine withnesses. It was done the right way when Andrew Johnson was impeached, when Nixon was headed for impeachment,a nd Bill Clinton was impeached. Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were not denied "due process" rights. What the the democrackpots are doing now is nothing more then the kangaroo court.

 

[Luckyone]

There are multiple reports he pressured Volker. If you want a link, find it yourself. I am not playing your little game.

Let me get this straight. Trump is president and in charge but it was Schiff that tried to pressure Voiker. Can you explain what kind of pressure Schiff can provide?

Trump did "pressure" the Ukrainian president in not delivering weapons that had already been promised and agreed to. That is the definition of pressure, but you say that Schiff applied pressure, right?

Could it be that Schiff believed that Volker was not being truthful or was not considering that he may not have been "part of the loop?"

It has been discovered that the pressure you are talking about was when Volker stated that the Ukrainian president was not aware that the delivery of weapons had been temporarily cancelled. Nonetheless, it has been found out that the Ukrainian president was aware of the cancellation, meaning that either Volker was lying or "not in the loop". It was a fair question, knowing that the statement had no truth behind it.

Let me do you work since it seems you are too lazy to do it.

Here is a link to "your" pressure situation

Adam Schiff Pressured Volker to Say Damaging Things About Trump

 

[Casper]

What you are unwilling to learn is that the impeachment process as the democrackpots are running it now is what would only be expected in a third world dictatorship. They are running it behind closed doors and refusing any republicans participating in the process. As they are interviewing so-called witnesses/whistleblowers and not getting what they want, they are taking a sentence here or there and leaking it to the press with no context. And they are doing that without a full vote of the House. It's not a real impeachment inquiry. If it were, there would be a full house vote and every representative in either party could bring or cross examine withnesses. It was done the right way when Andrew Johnson was impeached, when Nixon was headed for impeachment,a nd Bill Clinton was impeached. Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were not denied "due process" rights. What the the democrackpots are doing now is nothing more then the kangaroo court.

BS and Lies, from beging to end of that rant.

 

[Luckyone]

What you are unwilling to learn is that the impeachment process as the democrackpots are running it now is what would only be expected in a third world dictatorship. They are running it behind closed doors and refusing any republicans participating in the process. As they are interviewing so-called witnesses/whistleblowers and not getting what they want, they are taking a sentence here or there and leaking it to the press with no context. And they are doing that without a full vote of the House. It's not a real impeachment inquiry. If it were, there would be a full house vote and every representative in either party could bring or cross examine withnesses. It was done the right way when Andrew Johnson was impeached, when Nixon was headed for impeachment,a nd Bill Clinton was impeached. Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were not denied "due process" rights. What the the democrackpots are doing now is nothing more then the kangaroo court.

What do you expect? We are already in a third world dictatorship. Trump has put us there.

and by the way, there will be an impeachment and Trump and his cronies will have the chance to defend themselves completely.

I am truly surprised in the utter hypocrisy that you are providing. Trump has accused hundreds of people (most recently Biden) of improper and illegal conduct and he did it publicly without any proof or even an investigation. You have the gall to criticize the Democrats of accusing Trump of doing the same thing? At least, the Democrats have 3 years of clear instances where Trump abused his power. Perhaps you have forgotten that the Mueller investigation was not able to clear Trump of obstruction of justice?

You are a hypocrite of the 1st order.

 

[Luckyone]

What you are unwilling to learn is that the impeachment process as the democrackpots are running it now is what would only be expected in a third world dictatorship. They are running it behind closed doors and refusing any republicans participating in the process. As they are interviewing so-called witnesses/whistleblowers and not getting what they want, they are taking a sentence here or there and leaking it to the press with no context. And they are doing that without a full vote of the House. It's not a real impeachment inquiry. If it were, there would be a full house vote and every representative in either party could bring or cross examine withnesses. It was done the right way when Andrew Johnson was impeached, when Nixon was headed for impeachment,a nd Bill Clinton was impeached. Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were not denied "due process" rights. What the the democrackpots are doing now is nothing more then the kangaroo court.

Let me clue you in on your falseness of your statement:

House Oversight, Foreign Affairs or Intelligence Committees, are overseeing the inquiry. Republicans who are part of these committees have been able to fully participate in the closed-door interviews

Doesn't your statement now look uninformed and idiotic?

 

[Fenton]

What do you expect? We are already in a third world dictatorship. Trump has put us there.

and by the way, there will be an impeachment and Trump and his cronies will have the chance to defend themselves completely.

I am truly surprised in the utter hypocrisy that you are providing. Trump has accused hundreds of people (most recently Biden) of improper and illegal conduct and he did it publicly without any proof or even an investigation. You have the gall to criticize the Democrats of accusing Trump of doing the same thing? At least, the Democrats have 3 years of clear instances where Trump abused his power. Perhaps you have forgotten that the Mueller investigation was not able to clear Trump of obstruction of justice?

You are a hypocrite of the 1st order.

Pot meet kettle. Obama spied on journalist and the CIA under Brennan spied on Congress and then Brennan lied under oath in an attempt to cover it up

No administration took this Nation closer to a third world banana republic style dictatorship than Obama's and the Democrats in the House have kept it going in an attempt to remove a duly elected President.

And there is PLENTY of evidence to support accusations against Joe Biden, including the video of him bragging about threatening to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor that was currently investigating Burisma

The Democrats wished they had that kind of dirt on Trump, but they don't so they're forced to manufacture it, but their accusations against Trump are dependent on the naivety and gullibility of their supporters

 

[Luckyone]

Pot meet kettle. Obama spied on journalist and the CIA under Brennan spied on Congress and then Brennan lied under oath in an attempt to cover it up

No administration took this Nation closer to a third world banana republic style dictatorship than Obama's and the Democrats in the House have kept it going in an attempt to remove a duly elected President.

And there is PLENTY of evidence to support accusations against Joe Biden, including the video of him bragging about threatening to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor that was currently investigating Burisma

The Democrats wished they had that kind of dirt on Trump, but they don't so they're forced to manufacture it, but their accusations against Trump are dependent on the naivety and gullibility of their supporters

Your fantasy world is overwhelming with untruths and wild speculation based on "nothing". In simple words, you have no proof of anything and yet you criticize others for accusing Trump with plenty of reason to do so. I will not discuss anything with you anymore. You have no hold reality and I am not interested is playing "cowboys and indians" with you.

Good bye.

 

[Fenton]

Your fantasy world is overwhelming with untruths and wild speculation based on "nothing". In simple words, you have no proof of anything and yet you criticize others for accusing Trump with plenty of reason to do so. I will not discuss anything with you anymore. You have no hold reality and I am not interested is playing "cowboys and indians" with you.

Good bye.

Obama spied on journalist....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...at-obama-normalized-for-trump/?outputType=amp

Brennan lied about spying on Congress...
Access to this page has been denied.

So, your hatred of Trump and pretty much every one of your opinions is predicated on your own ignorance and your refusal to inform yourself

There are a lot of people out there like you and unfortunately they vote

 

[MAGAnificent]

BS and Lies, from beging to end of that rant.

Yours is a foolish interpretation considering that the history is all there. No previous impeachment inquiry has been handled in such a manner. Do your homework and read the history. To have any credibility, an impeachment inquiry would come with a vote in the full house and both parties would have equal power to subpoena and cross examine witnesses.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Let me get this straight. Trump is president and in charge but it was Schiff that tried to pressure Voiker. Can you explain what kind of pressure Schiff can provide?

What in the blazes are you talking about? Do try to stay focused.

Trump did "pressure" the Ukrainian president in not delivering weapons that had already been promised and agreed to. That is the definition of pressure, but you say that Schiff applied pressure, right?

No. Trump did no such thing.

Could it be that Schiff believed that Volker was not being truthful or was not considering that he may not have been "part of the loop?"

It has been discovered that the pressure you are talking about was when Volker stated that the Ukrainian president was not aware that the delivery of weapons had been temporarily cancelled. Nonetheless, it has been found out that the Ukrainian president was aware of the cancellation, meaning that either Volker was lying or "not in the loop". It was a fair question, knowing that the statement had no truth behind it.

Let me do you work since it seems you are too lazy to do it.

Here is a link to "your" pressure situation

Adam Schiff Pressured Volker to Say Damaging Things About Trump

Read the released transcript that the democrackpots are all hot and bothered about and get back you me. You are going off on tangents.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Yours is a foolish interpretation considering that the history is all there. No previous impeachment inquiry has been handled in such a manner. Do your homework and read the history. To have any credibility, an impeachment inquiry would come with a vote in the full house and both parties would have equal power to subpoena and cross examine witnesses.

Bull****.

In the Clinton matter, Ken Starr was essentially the impeachment inquiry. There was no vote by the House for him to start that investigation. Both parties did NOT have equal subpoena power and Clintons legal team didn't get to cross anyone until the trial in the Senate.

In the Nixon matter, the impeachment inquiry had begun a full 4 months before the Judiciary Committee was given the go ahead to fully investigate by the House. No public depositions, no equal time given to anyone.

So in the two most recent instances, it appears you are completely wrong.

 

[bongsaway]

When did Democrats vote on an impeachment inquiry ? I must have missed it

They don't have to, pay attention.

 

[bongsaway]

Rational people are calling for the process to be fair, and Constitutional protections observed. Let the chips fall where they may.

A Grand Jury conducts their business in private. Schiff's circus is anything but.

That is the issue at play.

If Schiff weren't a corrupt scumbag, and his committee honored the privacy and secrecy he is demanding, nobody would know what anyone was testifying too.

But that isn't happening.

If cause were found in the testimony to proceed with impeachment, the House could vote, and a trial would be set in the Senate.

Then the public would have a chance when an open proceeding was conducted with all parties lawyered up, and opposing parties able to cross examine and introduce countering evidence.

I'm sure y'all will get your chance. I wouldn't be in a rush if I were a trump supporter. Careful what ya' wish for.

 

[bongsaway]

I am not a "Trump Supporter" but I will not give credibility to any evidence coming out of this inquiry given the reports that shiff has been trying to coerce witnesses into testifying in the way he wanted them to testify.

Uh huh. Can you show us how he did this trick?

 

[bongsaway]

That story is bull****. Public hearings allow the people to see the cross examination of witnesses. It doesn't create chaos ass much as it creates transparency and transparency is the last thing Schiff wants as he tries to maintain his media narrative.

So when one witness testifies all the other potential witnesses get to hear what the person has said and can then 'adjust' their story when they testify.

The dems are following the rules set out by republicans, what's the problem? Why all the complaints?

 

[MAGAnificent]

What do you expect? We are already in a third world dictatorship. Trump has put us there.

No....we are not, however if the democrackpots were to get away with what they are attempting to pull, we will soon be one.

and by the way, there will be an impeachment and Trump and his cronies will have the chance to defend themselves completely.

Until then....with a full vote of the House, there is not one. Okay? There may very well be one enventually, however it will not get Trump kicked out of office and it will do 10 times the harm to the democrackpots then you think it will do to Trump.

I am truly surprised in the utter hypocrisy that you are providing. Trump has accused hundreds of people (most recently Biden) of improper and illegal conduct and he did it publicly without any proof or even an investigation. You have the gall to criticize the Democrats of accusing Trump of doing the same thing? At least, the Democrats have 3 years of clear instances where Trump abused his power.

Perhaps at some point, you will understand the difference between just making public statements and holding kangaroo court impeachment hearings.

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Mueller investigation was not able to clear Trump of obstruction of justice?

Again, perhaps at some point, you will understand that it was not and never would be up to the special prosecutor to clear Trump of obstruction of justice. Trump was not charged with obstruction of justice, therefore there was no obstruction of justice to clear him on. And no, the democrackpots do not have 3 years of clear instances of Trump abusing his power. They do not even have one second. If they did, they would not have had to go "kanagroo court" to make it look like they did.

You are a hypocrite of the 1st order.

I would be offended if I thought you had even an inkling what you are talking about.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Let me clue you in on your falseness of your statement:



Doesn't your statement now look uninformed and idiotic?

You are going to have to do alot better then that.

 

[Casper]

Yours is a foolish interpretation considering that the history is all there. No previous impeachment inquiry has been handled in such a manner. Do your homework and read the history. To have any credibility, an impeachment inquiry would come with a vote in the full house and both parties would have equal power to subpoena and cross examine witnesses.

Do your history work. The current Rules were set by the Repubs. Learn it or remain ignorant, life if full of choices

 

[MAGAnificent]

Bull****.

In the Clinton matter, Ken Starr was essentially the impeachment inquiry. There was no vote by the House for him to start that investigation. Both parties did NOT have equal subpoena power and Clintons legal team didn't get to cross anyone until the trial in the Senate.

In the Nixon matter, the impeachment inquiry had begun a full 4 months before the Judiciary Committee was given the go ahead to fully investigate by the House. No public depositions, no equal time given to anyone.

So in the two most recent instances, it appears you are completely wrong.

Get back to me when you learn the difference between a special prosecutor and impeachment inquiries or hearings. Ken Starr was not an impeachment inquiry, nor could Robert Mueller be considered one.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Do your history work. The current Rules were set by the Repubs. Learn it or remain ignorant, life if full of choices

I don't care who set the so-called rules the democrackpots claim to be using. It's not an official impeachment inquiry or process unless it goes to a full vote in the House. In the case of Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, it went to a full vote of the house. Only the democrackpots are going behind closed doors.