• 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's thought on impeechment back when

Bullseye

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,688
Reaction score
16,571
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hasn't aged well has it?

A few highlights:

It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.
Click to expand...


What is so profoundly disturbing is not that this small group of Clinton-haters hatched this plan. It’s that this group — or any group equally dogmatic and cunning — came so close to succeeding.
Click to expand...

But it almost happened. And in the future it could be a left wing zealous organization or another right wing group or some other group with strong narrow beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
 
Drawdown said:
Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
Click to expand...

Well we would LOVE to have them testify but Trump won't let them.
 
Praxas said:
Shall we post Grahams comments about impeachment? Especially the part where Graham says that a crime doesn't have to be committed for impeachment? I bet Graham is your hero.
Click to expand...
I think that's already been posted a few times.
 
Drawdown said:
Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
Click to expand...

Actually, didn't that LtCol say Trump was within his power to delay delivering the aid?
 
Bullseye said:
Actually, didn't that LtCol say Trump was within his power to delay delivering the aid?
Click to expand...

I vaguely think so but that is not where the delay came from.
 
Drawdown said:
I vaguely think so but that is not where the delay came from.
Click to expand...
Mulvaney said in one of his press conferences that they were aware they needed to dispense the aid before the end of the fiscal year.
 
Shumer is Nancy's B**** Boy. The minority leader of the Senate is there simply to please Nancy and do her bidding.
 
Bullseye said:
Mulvaney said in one of his press conferences that they were aware they needed to dispense the aid before the end of the fiscal year.
Click to expand...

Either way, the democrats are in the deep weeds right now. They have no direct evidence. The transcript is not a smoking gun quid pro quo. They don't have a single witness saying Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid. Most Americans really hate foreign aid and couldn't care less about the Ukraine. On top of all that, there is the video of Joe bragging about using funding to force the firing of the prosecutor which was the thing Trump referenced in the phone call and asked them to look into. Some of the Senators who think he broke the law don't think it is serious enough to warrant removal.


In the midst of all that, their golden boy Joe isn;t gaining any traction in the polls and they have Ralphie Blackface stoking a holy war in Virginia over guns. I really do not see how the dems can come out of 2020 not crippled by all this.
 
Drawdown said:
Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
Click to expand...

Yet those that support impeachment are still so desperate as to make it seem like he "must" be impeached.
 
Drawdown said:
To the victor goes the spoils.
Click to expand...

Yep we know you support corruption in Trump. No need for you to continue showing how you support lawlessness in Trump.
 
Oborosen said:
Yet those that support impeachment are still so desperate as to make it seem like he "must" be impeached.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
 
WillyPete said:
I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
Click to expand...

They're most likely waiting to see just how much free press they can squeeze from this, if my understand of Trump is to be taken into consideration.

Then again, the process of legislation here could have their hands tied as well. I'm not really sure at this point.
 
Drawdown said:
Dueling inconsistencies don't mean much. So far as I know, not a single witness testified to the House that Trump personally ordered them to withhold the aid let alone why. Without that, there simply is no case to be made.
Click to expand...

Only one witness had direct knowledge and was called by Schiff, his star witness. This witness testified that Trump made no quid pro quo, bribery or extortion, that Trump instructed that no one else do so, and he had no knowledge of Trump wanted to do so either. Schiff's only witness with any knowledge of anything was actually a witness for Trump's innocence. The ONLY actual witness that is even allowed under the Federal Rules Of Evidence testified to Trump's innocence.
 
WillyPete said:
I'm still trying to figure out how the GOP is so afraid of a nonexistent case that they are doing their level best to sandbag the trial.

Shouldn't they all, and Trump especially, welcome the opportunity to air out the whole thing?

If it's all a scam and a hoax, shouldn't they seize upon the opportunity to rub the Democrat's noses in it, by using the trial to reveal as much truth to the public as possible?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can prevail upon Schiff and Pelosi to stop suppressing WB testimony. We're all supposed to have the right to confront our accuser in court. So you should probably ask yourself exactly what the dems are afraid of, while you're asking questions. Considering Schiff's conduct, were he a practicing prosecutor, he'd be disbarred.
 
humbolt said:
Maybe you can prevail upon Schiff and Pelosi to stop suppressing WB testimony. We're all supposed to have the right to confront our accuser in court. So you should probably ask yourself exactly what the dems are afraid of, while you're asking questions. Considering Schiff's conduct, were he a practicing prosecutor, he'd be disbarred.
Click to expand...

The entire point of whistleblower laws is to protect the whistleblower so they are willing to testify at all. They brought in numerous other witnesses to corroborate the whistleblower's information that were questioned. I don't know of any particular allegation that is unique to the whistleblower.

Doesn't really explain team Trump's behavior, either. Their story doesn't sync up with their actions. If they are innocent victims of a hoax, then they should be chomping at the bit to put accurate information in play.
 
WillyPete said:
The entire point of whistleblower laws is to protect the whistleblower so they are willing to testify at all. They brought in numerous other witnesses to corroborate the whistleblower's information that were questioned. I don't know of any particular allegation that is unique to the whistleblower.

Doesn't really explain team Trump's behavior, either. Their story doesn't sync up with their actions. If they are innocent victims of a hoax, then they should be chomping at the bit to put accurate information in play.
Click to expand...

The Whistleblower is protected. As it stands, we don't have WB testimony, so we have no ground upon which to evaluate WB claims. We have only Schiff's assertion that other witnesses support the WB' assertions. Given Schiff's poor track record with truthfulness, I think we need to hear from the WB, if we're going to hear from anybody at all. Further, if we're going to have witnesses, let's hear from the IC IG. A change in WB qualification was made right before this WB stepped forward which makes second hand witnesses suddenly qualified - a coincidence which needs some explanation beyond a shrug. That's a rather unique circumstance.

Given that the above are already facts in evidence, I doubt any witnesses are necessary. But if we have any, those two should be the first to offer testmony.
 
humbolt said:
The Whistleblower is protected. As it stands, we don't have WB testimony, so we have no ground upon which to evaluate WB claims. We have only Schiff's assertion that other witnesses support the WB' assertions. Given Schiff's poor track record with truthfulness, I think we need to hear from the WB, if we're going to hear from anybody at all. Further, if we're going to have witnesses, let's hear from the IC IG. A change in WB qualification was made right before this WB stepped forward which makes second hand witnesses suddenly qualified - a coincidence which needs some explanation beyond a shrug. That's a rather unique circumstance.

Given that the above are already facts in evidence, I doubt any witnesses are necessary. But if we have any, those two should be the first to offer testmony.
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting as much relevant testimony in play as possible, but it seems like that would require the whistleblower being unmasked, and that seems to go against the idea of them being protected from retaliation.

I'm not sure what the IG IC would have to offer as testimony, but clearly they're positioned to know a lot. By all means, let's have as much testimony as necessary to get the clearest possible picture of the truth of the matter.

That's why it's so confusing that the GOP is restricting the Senate trial so much. This is their time to blow this nonsense out of the water in a friendly venue. There should be a parade of first hand witnesses defending our president from these baseless assertions, right!?
 
WillyPete said:
I'm all for getting as much relevant testimony in play as possible, but it seems like that would require the whistleblower being unmasked, and that seems to go against the idea of them being protected from retaliation.

I'm not sure what the IG IC would have to offer as testimony, but clearly they're positioned to know a lot. By all means, let's have as much testimony as necessary to get the clearest possible picture of the truth of the matter.

That's why it's so confusing that the GOP is restricting the Senate trial so much. This is their time to blow this nonsense out of the water in a friendly venue. There should be a parade of first hand witnesses defending our president from these baseless assertions, right!?
Click to expand...

I have no objection to witnesses. I do have an objection to hearing similar second hand witnesses that we heard from in the House. I don't see the need for witnesses at this point - the House was satisfied that they'd heard sufficient testimony to forward articles of impeachment. Seems to me we should evaluate their evidence and act on their claim. But if we're going to entertain further testimony, I'll be interested in what they might have to say with less restrictive questioning.
 
humbolt said:
I have no objection to witnesses. I do have an objection to hearing similar second hand witnesses that we heard from in the House. I don't see the need for witnesses at this point - the House was satisfied that they'd heard sufficient testimony to forward articles of impeachment. Seems to me we should evaluate their evidence and act on their claim. But if we're going to entertain further testimony, I'll be interested in what they might have to say with less restrictive questioning.
Click to expand...

Seems like you have your rationalizations all lined up to excuse the GOP as they continue behaving like the truth is poison.
 
WillyPete said:
Seems like you have your rationalizations all lined up to excuse the GOP as they continue behaving like the truth is poison.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the House exposed the truth?
 
humbolt said:
So you don't believe the House exposed the truth?
Click to expand...

How could they have anything close to the complete truth, with the blocking of testimony by Trump?

That itself speaks of a fear of the truth, even if it is within his rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom