Sure is a good thing that Pelosi and her gang didn't design a suit for Trump. We'd all see right through it and that's probably not a good sight to see
Impeachment, let your Senator Know
-
-
Distraction
Its the key to most magic tricks - - - the magician gets their audience to look at what they want instead of looking at what matters
This is what the Democrats are doing, they are going to try to get their audience to look at different things that Mr Trump has done and said and then when they are done they will argue that he should be removed from office for doing them.
the distraction is that they will try to keep their audience looking at what was done instead of actually deciding if those things are crimes
Fact is Trump has done things he probably should not have done, Fact is Mr. Trump is a buffoon, Fact is Mr. Trump often does and says things I think most people wish he didn't do or say - - - Fact is none of this is a crime, but the Democrats will try as hard as they can to make sure we are distracted from this little fact
This cr@p would never even make it to a criminal court in the real world - crimes are specifically defined in the law and no prosecutor worth darn would ever bring a case to court without very specific criminal charges that listed the exact crimes committed and the code sections that described those crimes
The really sad part is how many good Americans have actually fallen for the democrats magic and are looking at the wrong hand and are willing to remove a sitting President for simply being an ass
-
Display MoreDistraction
Its the key to most magic tricks - - - the magician gets their audience to look at what they want instead of looking at what matters
This is what the Democrats are doing, they are going to try to get their audience to look at different things that Mr Trump has done and said and then when they are done they will argue that he should be removed from office for doing them.
the distraction is that they will try to keep their audience looking at what was done instead of actually deciding if those things are crimes
Fact is Trump has done things he probably should not have done, Fact is Mr. Trump is a buffoon, Fact is Mr. Trump often does and says things I think most people wish he didn't do or say - - - Fact is none of this is a crime, but the Democrats will try as hard as they can to make sure we are distracted from this little fact
This cr@p would never even make it to a criminal court in the real world - crimes are specifically defined in the law and no prosecutor worth darn would ever bring a case to court without very specific criminal charges that listed the exact crimes committed and the code sections that described those crimes
The really sad part is how many good Americans have actually fallen for the democrats magic and are looking at the wrong hand and are willing to remove a sitting President for simply being an ass
You do realize Trump is the King of distraction. He attempts to change the news cycle hourly when things look bad for him.
Here Edward Neal , you seem to be hung up on the titles and not the accusations.
-
You do realize Trump is the King of distraction. He attempts to change the news cycle hourly when things look bad for him.
Here Edward Neal , you seem to be hung up on the titles and not the accusations.
All song and dance - why do the Dems need to call more witnesses if they have a rock solid case?? AGAIN - please show me the statute whereby Trump broke the law !!!
-
I wasn't going to comment on this topic anymore, but ...
From what I've read, the Constitution is deliberately vague on what constitutes impeachable behavior. Here is a good article on what the Constitution says and why it is believed the Founding Fathers framed the section on Impeachment in the Constitution the way they did.
-
Innocent people will allow any witness to be called and any evidence to be presented that will prove their innocence. This so called trial in the Senate will prove, as we all know, to be nothing more the partisan politics as usual. Is this what "We The People" deserve?
-
Innocent people will allow any witness to be called and any evidence to be presented that will prove their innocence. This so called trial in the Senate will prove, as we all know, to be nothing more the partisan politics as usual. Is this what "We The People" deserve?
Not to say I don't agree with what you are saying.
How many witnesses can be called on a conversation that was between two presidents and transcribed buy two people ?
The Ukraine president himself stated he felt no pressure, there was no Quid Pro Quo. I believe the aid was provided to Ukraine with no information exchange.
The transcript is in public? Information against the president was provided second hand buy someone unknown? Who from what I understand did not actually hear the conversation?
-
Innocent people will allow any witness to be called and any evidence to be presented that will prove their innocence. This so called trial in the Senate will prove, as we all know, to be nothing more the partisan politics as usual. Is this what "We The People" deserve?
With all due respect. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The Democrats have to prove both his guilt and that the articles (either one or both of them) rise to the point of being impeachable crimes. At this point, I would be surprised if the charges against him are allowed to go on as they have no standing in the point of law. Obstruction of congress does not show up anywhere as being a crime. It's a fancy way of saying Nancy and Shifty Schiff got their panties stuffed up their butt and didn't get their way and want to prove a point that they otherwise couldn't prove
-
With all due respect. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence. The Democrats have to prove both his guilt and that the articles (either one or both of them) rise to the point of being impeachable crimes. At this point, I would be surprised if the charges against him are allowed to go on as they have no standing in the point of law. Obstruction of congress does not show up anywhere as being a crime. It's a fancy way of saying Nancy and Shifty Schiff got their panties stuffed up their butt and didn't get their way and want to prove a point that they otherwise couldn't prove
High crimes and misdemeanors are basically whatever the House decides that they are and are tried in the Senate. The charges and conviction (if any) are not subject to judicial review, meaning that the decision cannot be appealed. The rule of law does not apply. If 67 Senators vote to remove the President from office, there's not a thing that he or she can do about it! This is what Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz said during the Clinton impeachment.
-
Display MoreNot to say I don't agree with what you are saying.
How many witnesses can be called on a conversation that was between two presidents and transcribed buy two people ?
The Ukraine president himself stated he felt no pressure, there was no Quid Pro Quo. I believe the aid was provided to Ukraine with no information exchange.
The transcript is in public? Information against the president was provided second hand buy someone unknown? Who from what I understand did not actually hear the conversation?
Actually, the public has NOT seen any transcript of the phone call. The document released by the White House is clearly marked as a reconstruction and is NOT the transcript Trump keeps calling it. There are gaps in the so-called transcript which would normally indicate missing information. A transcript would normally be a verbatim written record of the conversation with any words or phrases that might have been hard to hear/understand clearly marked that they may not have been clearly transcribed. Such gaps are often also annotated to reflect the approximate number of unintelligible words in the missing section, if possible, to provide the clearest possible record of what was said. A reconstruction is an attempt to reproduce what was said, generally w/o access to a recording or written record and is usually based on the recollections of the participants in the conversation or from witnesses to the conversation.
IIRC, some reports stated Ukraine officials were about to announce an investigation so the money would be released, but the US Administration released the money after knowledge of the "alleged" hold was made public and it was reported that the money had been illegally/improperly withheld.
The fact that the whistle-blower did not have first-hand knowledge is not that important since many folks who did have first-hand knowledge of the conversation have substantiated the info in the whist-blower's complaint. The only way to base an argument against the use of second-hand knowledge would be if there were no corroborating evidence and the second-hand info constituted the only basis for an accusation or investigation. In this case, there appear to be plenty of witnesses that have substantiated the whistle-blower's complaint.
-
High crimes and misdemeanors are basically whatever the House decides that they are and are tried in the Senate. The charges and conviction (if any) are not subject to judicial review, meaning that the decision cannot be appealed. The rule of law does not apply. If 62 Senators vote to remove the President from office, there's not a thing that he or she can do about it! This is what Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz said during the Clinton impeachment.
I assume maverick5990 mistyped 62 instead of the 67 required for a 2/3 majority to convict an impeached individual.
It's funny how people change their views over time. Dershowitz' change from a crime not needed to have occurred in referring to Clinton's impeachment but now saying the House needed evidence/accusations of a crime for Trump to be impeached. Many Constitution experts don't have a very high opinion of Dershowitz' new assertions. The Founding Fathers are generally felt to have deliberately been vague as to what actions are impeachable since they didn't want to limit what might constitute an impeachable offense which would be the case if they had specified exact situations that constituted impeachable offenses.
-
Hillary Clinton seems to be a lightning rod for attracting dislike for many Republicans. Republican commentator and Never Trumper, Jennifer Rubin, recently published an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled "Hillary Clinton is the most exonerated politician ever." Rubin basically says repeated FBI investigations into Hillary's activities have not resulted in any criminal findings. She sums up her opinion piece as follows - "...Clinton can tout her two exonerations. Trump doesn’t have even one."
Link to the WP opinion piece - https://www.washingtonpost.com…onerated-politician-ever/
-
Came across an interesting article on Yahoo! News related the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court Chief Justice in running the Impeachment Trial. It maintains that the Senate rules that allow the Senate to overrule decisions by the SCCJ may be unconstitutional and than SCCJ Roberts has the authority to run the trial as he sees fit, even completely ignoring the rules Senator Mitch McConnell has proposed.
-
Welcome members to a historic moment in the history of our nation. The Impeachment Trial of the President will begin at 1 pm. Find a viewing location for the trial, or if you can listen, and prepare to debate the testimony presented in the Trial.
I am very interested in hearing any new witnesses that have testimony to share about the charges for impeachment. To not hear all testimony leaves me with uncertainty. I can not understand why anyone would not want to hear it.
Folks, this is a key question that will come up in the trial, a key point for us to state our positions. The people of the nation deserve to hear everything, good and bad about the charges. I saw many times that the house asked for witnesses and documents from the White House. I wanted all request to be honored, none were. I feel robbed of the real truth. We are now at a new phase of the Impeachment Process and I do not see why we can not see and hear what was blocked in the House debates. I am a Registered Republican and still want to hear all the testimony.
So, let's see how this plays out.
We are all friends and we are just stating our views as we see them. Back here after 1pm and all be ready to state your positions and why. Thanks for participating.
I heard this morning that any vote for new witnesses and/or evidence won't happen until next week.
-
I heard this morning that any vote for new witnesses and/or evidence won't happen until next week.
Will be waiting then, thanks for update.
-
The house rushed everything and didn’t let all testimony to be heard under their show and now they want to cry foul. They didn’t give the accused a chance to even cross examine. The abuse of power was witnessed under the house procedures. It amazes me how the Democrats told the Republicans to go pound sand when they had control and now they don’t so it’s just easy for them to call cover up. Those that participated in the unconstitutional findings should all be brought up to answer for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
November 8 2016. The day the United States of America jumped the shark.
-
Members we are close to the start. All should find a viewing location, if you have not found one, Here is an online link for CBSN for full trial viewing.
All get ready to debate what if presented. We will all hear it the same way, let's present our views and why we feel the way we do. We are past any comments of pretrial thoughts. We are all fresh and ready to listen and respond with our comments as the a point come to interest for discussion.
If new folks have arrived, please vote on the Impeachment Question Poll as you feel now. As we go through the trial you feel different about a question, you can change your vote on the poll. Only one question can be changed at a time.
Here is the way the poll stands near the beginning of trial.
Link to poll
