Impeachment Hearings

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Harley, one way to take down "the left" and diminish their influence here and elsewhere in the US would be to address their arguments in kind.

I am looking for some one of our Trump supporters to explain to me why "hate" is a suitable explanation for investigations into Trump for actions which would trigger a legal response to anyone perpetrating them. 

When people like Rod Blogoyevich or Paul Manafort are indicted for crimes, no one claims the legal pressure on them is simply the result of "hate." The reference is always to their actions.

Thus, the House cannot send articles of Impeachment to the Senate based upon "hate."  They cannot offer testimony of how much they hate Trump and have always hated him so just want to undo his elecion.

There must be some reference to identifiable actions which violate specifiable laws.  If the president were not presenting the House with such actions and violations, they would be unable to move on impeachment.  E.g., suppose Trump had never conditioned aid on an announcement of a Biden investigation during a phone call and illegally withheld it, or suppose he had never ordered a subordinate to falsify records?  There would be nothing to act on, right?

It seems odd that you and others would expect our government to ignore such violations--especially in the man charged to enforce the law from the highest level.   Right now it looks like the "hate" charge, followed by dismissal of any substantial engagement with the charges against Trump, is just a way of ignoring what Trump actually does. It is to ignore rule of law with respect to one's party and to place one's favored candidate above the law.     

I think anyone with an opinion of hate would have a valid point when an impeachment is partisan. There were no republicans who supported it. Plus, with some of the loudmouthed butthurt people on the left crying for impeachment before he was even inaugurated kinda leans in favor of an opinion of hate.

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2020, 04:44 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I think anyone with an opinion of hate would have a valid point when an impeachment is partisan. There were no republicans who supported it. Plus, with some of the loudmouthed butthurt people on the left crying for impeachment before he was even inaugurated kinda leans in favor of an opinion of hate.

Justin Amash supported it. He was a Republican until becoming an independent in July. Mitt Romney became the only Senator to ever vote to convict a president from his own party.

Multiple GOP senators admitted that what Trump did was wrong.

The fact that Republicans were unwilling to challenge Trump doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been impeached.

[GMDino]

for posterity, here's a complete list of GOP lawmakers called out by Trump today: pic.twitter.com/annDommbZL

— Sam Brodey (@sambrodey) February 6, 2020

 

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Justin Amash supported it. He was a Republican until becoming an independent in July. Mitt Romney became the only Senator to ever vote to convict a president from his own party.

Multiple GOP senators admitted that what Trump did was wrong.

The fact that Republicans were unwilling to challenge Trump doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been impeached.

My apology. I should have been more specific. I meant in the house. However, Romney only voted guilty on 1 article and not both. That's not convincing when you needed 67 votes. 

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 05:35 PM)GMDino Wrote:

for posterity, here's a complete list of GOP lawmakers called out by Trump today: pic.twitter.com/annDommbZL

— Sam Brodey (@sambrodey) February 6, 2020

 

Something else Trump said, "It was all bullshit!"

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2020, 07:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: My apology. I should have been more specific. I meant in the house. However, Romney only voted guilty on 1 article and not both. That's not convincing when you needed 67 votes. 

Convincing of what? Bipartisanship? That was never going to happen, as highlighted by the multiple Republicans who admitted he did it and then said they’d acquit.

The overwhelming evidence that he did it is enough to justify the impeachment.

We both would have supported impeaching Obama if he did this. We both would have rejected the argument that he could misuse the power of his office in anyways with impunity if he was trying to get re-elected.

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 07:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Convincing of what? Bipartisanship? That was never going to happen, as highlighted by the multiple Republicans who admitted he did it and then said they’d acquit.

The overwhelming evidence that he did it is enough to justify the impeachment.

We've already beat this horse in this thread one way or another. IMO, I believe it's been a witch hunt. Wanting to punish Trump for less than what the dems have done in the past. No goose no gander. The facts and overwhelming evidence continues to not be facts at all and more lies and cover ups and a lot of money spent just to impeach, because the dems thought they were a lock for this presidency. Continuously whining and crying like a little child who's been told "NO" is not working well for the party. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2020, 08:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: We've already beat this horse in this thread one way or another. IMO, I believe it's been a witch hunt. Wanting to punish Trump for less than what the dems have done in the past. No goose no gander. The facts and overwhelming evidence continues to not be facts at all and more lies and cover ups and a lot of money spent just to impeach, because the dems thought they were a lock for this presidency. Continuously whining and crying like a little child who's been told "NO" is not working well for the party. 

So it's a witch hunt with not facts, only lies, but multiple members of the GOP admit that it happened.

It's less than what Democrats have done? What have they done?

Do you have any facts you want to back that all up with or is this a purely emotional opinion from you?

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2020, 07:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: My apology. I should have been more specific. I meant in the house. However, Romney only voted guilty on 1 article and not both. That's not convincing when you needed 67 votes. 

Amash was told to resign from the party for supporting impeachment. That was a Republican supporting impeachment, but because the GOP doesn't like it when their officials think for themselves they gave him his walking papers.

As for Romney, his vote was the correct one. That second article was wrong.

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 08:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So it's a witch hunt with not facts, only lies, but multiple members of the GOP admit that it happened.

It's less than what Democrats have done? What have they done?

Do you have any facts you want to back that all up with or is this a purely emotional opinion from you?

I guess I'll say emotional since you will not accept any response I provide. You know about the arguments of Biden, the fake dossier, James Comey and the FBI, the collusion with the Russians, the deleted emails, etc. None of that matters because the focus is on Trump. Everytime these things are mentioned, it's not relative because it's all about Trump. All of these attacks on the potus have failed. Yet, they will keep coming.

Members of the GOP who stated what you said also followed by saying it was not an impeachable offense. DNC has created a political stagnation for years to come. GOP will do the same thing when a dem potus is elected (although I hope not). This partisan impeachment has not worked out well for not only the dems, but the nation for years to come. 

I will say this again and add to it. I used to vote both sides on whoever BS'd me the most (yeah, I was kinda ribbed for that response at one time in this or another thread). The reason I said BS'd was because most campaign promises are not kept. But when a party acts like my vote doesn't count because their voice is bigger than mine and they want to remove a potus I elected? That's pretty personal. If your going to drag the guy through the mud for things you can prove and there is a bipartisan agreement? I can accept and get behind an impeachment because I would be on here supporting with you. It didn't work this way. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2020, 09:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I guess I'll say emotional since you will not accept any response I provide. You know about the arguments of Biden, the fake dossier, James Comey and the FBI, the collusion with the Russians, the deleted emails, etc. None of that matters because the focus is on Trump. Everytime these things are mentioned, it's not relative because it's all about Trump. All of these attacks on the potus have failed. Yet, they will keep coming.

Members of the GOP who stated what you said also followed by saying it was not an impeachable offense. DNC has created a political stagnation for years to come. GOP will do the same thing when a dem potus is elected (although I hope not). This partisan impeachment has not worked out well for not only the dems, but the nation for years to come. 

I will say this again and add to it. I used to vote both sides on whoever BS'd me the most (yeah, I was kinda ribbed for that response at one time in this or another thread). The reason I said BS'd was because most campaign promises are not kept. But when a party acts like my vote doesn't count because their voice is bigger than mine and they want to remove a potus I elected? That's pretty personal. If your going to drag the guy through the mud for things you can prove and there is a bipartisan agreement? I can accept and get behind an impeachment because I would be on here supporting with you. It didn't work this way. 

A few pages back I went line by line addressing your points with sources to back myself up. You haven't provided anything to refute that.

The fact that you voted for Trump shouldn't be relevant to whether or not he should be removed for office for the offense that he committed. 

As to your point about the GOP saying what he did isn't impeachable and that you cannot accept an impeachment if both parties don't agree, I will direct you to the changing GOP narrative from "No quid pro quo" to "Sure, but you can't be impeached for that"

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-no-quid-pro-quo-trump-ukraine-call_n_5d92505be4b0e9e76051291f

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-quid-pro-quo-republicans_n_5e31ae0ac5b680b21f0a2547

[hollodero]

(02-06-2020, 09:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I guess I'll say emotional since you will not accept any response I provide. You know about the arguments of Biden, the fake dossier, James Comey and the FBI, the collusion with the Russians, the deleted emails, etc. None of that matters because the focus is on Trump. Everytime these things are mentioned, it's not relative because it's all about Trump.

I and others have addressed those points again and again until our fingers turned blue. At this point, the Trump supporters I know quit the conversation or talk about something else. Just to bring all that up again after some time.

Let's do it again though.

@Biden yeah, his son had a seat on Burisma. Yeah, he probably did get that job because his last name gave the company some credibility. He wouldn't have gotten the job if he were not a Biden. Still he took it, which of course I consider fishy. I guess almost everyone does.
Then again, it's not illegal and it has nothing inherently to do with Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not fire an Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son. This narrative is just false. He helped firing a corrupt prosecutor, along with all other western nations; a prosecutor that also left Burisma alone for their possible misdeeds in times before Hunter joined. His firing was not inherently helpful to Hunter.

@fake dossier only a few things were falsified. Some were confirmed. Some are just allegations. It is a part of oppo research, an ugly thing that is baffling to see, but happening all the time nonetheless. You hardly can win an US election without this kind of uglyness.
Steele was hired by a fellow republican and picked up by Hillary. In that sense, the dossier resulted from a bipartisan effort to find actual dirt on Trump. None of the things were used against Trump in the presidential election. And the FBI Russia investigation was not based on the dossier either (but on Papadopoulos, which even Devin Nunes acknowledged in his "release the memo" flop)

@Comey he screwed Hillary way more than he ever screwed Trump. He announced new investigations days before the election, which hurt her immensely. Because of that, it seems unreasonable to see him as an anti-Trump partisan.
But sure, he made nortes when Trump demanded loyalty out of him. If anything, he was a coward in this instance. But he has all reasons to be alarmed and let it be known that this happened. It should alarm everyone, everyone that an US poresident demands loyalty of the FBI leader.

@Russian collusion this was not born out of nothing. Have you ever bothered reading into part 1 of the Mueller report. Yeah, there was nothing that could be proven as an illegal deed. But that does not mean there was nothing to see. There was plenty to see, plenty really shady stuff. I can expand if you wish. Think Roger Stone and his contacts to Wikileaks, Paul Manafort and his private briefings he gave to Russian oligarchs (amongst other things), think Michael Flynn, think Trump tower meeting.
On and also Russia meddled in your election with a thorough disinformation campaign. This is a fact.

@deleted emails how was this not debated in length. It was a huge topic on CNN (that I know), it was talked about all the time. Reasonably, I came to the conclusion that nefarious intent could not be proven. That is fueled by learning how this deletion came to pass. Emails were deleted that regularly should have been deleted a long time agom but someone did not do his job. That's what happened. Every additional allegation is way more unfounded speculation than the things thrown at Trump.
Also, Hillary was an awful candidate and this whole private server thing was more than just a blunder, to me. Then again. Trump does the same kind of things and no republican makes anything of it. Trump actually secures calssified information way worse than Hillary did with her server. He tells Russian foreign ministers, talks about them in restaurants, shouts about them on the phone, which btw. is unsecured. Whoiever slams Hillary for her being so uncautious and has no issue with Trump being way more uncautious does not make a good faith argument.

@etc anything else?

-- aside from that, carry on... just don't make the accusation that these things do not get addressed.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-06-2020, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Justin Amash supported it. He was a Republican until becoming an independent in July. Mitt Romney became the only Senator to ever vote to convict a president from his own party.

Multiple GOP senators admitted that what Trump did was wrong.

The fact that Republicans were unwilling to challenge Trump doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been impeached.

Being wrong is one thing, rising to the level of impeachment is another.  Obviously the Left voted nearly (but not completely) for impeachment, and in the Senate they fell woefully short of any hopes of conviction and removal.

Nice try on your part and many others to try to convince the world that it was "about the facts", but it's painfully obvious that it was merely a partisan attempt to take down a sitting President.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2020, 10:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Being wrong is one thing, rising to the level of impeachment is another.  Obviously the Left voted nearly (but not completely) for impeachment, and in the Senate they fell woefully short of any hopes of conviction and removal.

Nice try on your part and many others to try to convince the world that it was "about the facts", but it's painfully obvious that it was merely a partisan attempt to take down a sitting President.  

If you're acknowledging that he did it then you're agreeing with the facts, you're just disagreeing with the interpretation that "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes abuse of office. 

With regards to convincing the world, there's plenty of polling to show that the public agree with impeachment and with the facts presented by the House managers. 

I have a feeling that this "painfully obvious" view is as "painfully obvious" as your unfounded claim that many other Presidents withheld aid from foreign nations and asked them to investigate their election opponents. 

[HarleyDog]

(02-06-2020, 09:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I and others have addressed those points again and again until our fingers turned blue. At this point, the Trump supporters I know quit the conversation or talk about something else. Just to bring all that up again after some time.

Let's do it again though.

@Biden yeah, his son had a seat on Burisma. Yeah, he probably did get that job because his last name gave the company some credibility. He wouldn't have gotten the job if he were not a Biden. Still he took it, which of course I consider fishy. I guess almost everyone does.
Then again, it's not illegal and it has nothing inherently to do with Joe Biden. Joe Biden did not fire an Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son. This narrative is just false. He helped firing a corrupt prosecutor, along with all other western nations; a prosecutor that also left Burisma alone for their possible misdeeds in times before Hunter joined. His firing was not inherently helpful to Hunter.

@fake dossier only a few things were falsified. Some were confirmed. Some are just allegations. It is a part of oppo research, an ugly thing that is baffling to see, but happening all the time nonetheless. You hardly can win an US election without this kind of uglyness.
Steele was hired by a fellow republican and picked up by Hillary. In that sense, the dossier resulted from a bipartisan effort to find actual dirt on Trump. None of the things were used against Trump in the presidential election. And the FBI Russia investigation was not based on the dossier either (but on Papadopoulos, which even Devin Nunes acknowledged in his "release the memo" flop)

@Comey he screwed Hillary way more than he ever screwed Trump. He announced new investigations days before the election, which hurt her immensely. Because of that, it seems unreasonable to see him as an anti-Trump partisan.
But sure, he made nortes when Trump demanded loyalty out of him. If anything, he was a coward in this instance. But he has all reasons to be alarmed and let it be known that this happened. It should alarm everyone, everyone that an US poresident demands loyalty of the FBI leader.

@Russian collusion this was not born out of nothing. Have you ever bothered reading into part 1 of the Mueller report. Yeah, there was nothing that could be proven as an illegal deed. But that does not mean there was nothing to see. There was plenty to see, plenty really shady stuff. I can expand if you wish. Think Roger Stone and his contacts to Wikileaks, Paul Manafort and his private briefings he gave to Russian oligarchs (amongst other things), think Michael Flynn, think Trump tower meeting.
On and also Russia meddled in your election with a thorough disinformation campaign. This is a fact.

@deleted emails how was this not debated in length. It was a huge topic on CNN (that I know), it was talked about all the time. Reasonably, I came to the conclusion that nefarious intent could not be proven. That is fueled by learning how this deletion came to pass. Emails were deleted that regularly should have been deleted a long time agom but someone did not do his job. That's what happened. Every additional allegation is way more unfounded speculation than the things thrown at Trump.
Also, Hillary was an awful candidate and this whole private server thing was more than just a blunder, to me. Then again. Trump does the same kind of things and no republican makes anything of it. Trump actually secures calssified information way worse than Hillary did with her server. He tells Russian foreign ministers, talks about them in restaurants, shouts about them on the phone, which btw. is unsecured. Whoiever slams Hillary for her being so uncautious and has no issue with Trump being way more uncautious does not make a good faith argument.

@etc anything else?

-- aside from that, carry on... just don't make the accusation that these things do not get addressed.

What? 

[hollodero]

(02-06-2020, 11:16 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: What? 

You asked for those topics to be adressed. They are adressed.

[GMDino]

(02-06-2020, 11:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: You asked for those topics to be adressed. They are adressed.

No republican wants any of those issues addressed.  They want to say what they were told and to defend Trump because NOT defending Trump makes the entire party look feckless and weak.

That's the sad state of affairs right now and it is what happens when they elect a weak man who plays tough and then have to all bow to him to keep up the charade.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-07-2020, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: No republican wants any of those issues addressed.  They want to say what they were told and to defend Trump because NOT defending Trump makes the entire party look feckless and weak.

That's the sad state of affairs right now and it is what happens when they elect a weak man who plays tough and then have to all bow to him to keep up the charade.

The dam will break sooner or later. As republicans slowly pull their heads out of their asses. I can't imagine a party staying loyal to a reality tv show host, serial sexual assaulter, lying conman forever. 

[GMDino]

(02-07-2020, 11:56 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The dam will break sooner or later. As republicans slowly pull their heads out of their asses. I can't imagine a party staying loyal to a reality tv show host, serial sexual assaulter, lying conman forever. 

Oh, once he leaves office (or when they do) they will all "recall" how they were "privately" just so upset about his behavior.

Well most will. 

Voters won't.  If they are dumb enough to be conned now they won't get smarter later.

[jj22]

(02-07-2020, 11:56 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The dam will break sooner or later. As republicans slowly pull their heads out of their asses. I can't imagine a party staying loyal to a reality tv show host, serial sexual assaulter, lying conman forever. 

The only thing that will change and make Americans care about the constitution and our Democracy more and not applaud needing a foreign countries help winning elections is if a Democrat President did it.

Then you will see the enormous bipartisan backlash and pro America movement.

Hell you saw that when Nancy tore up a speech.

That got the biggest reaction from Americans as it relates to decorum in the last 3 years. Republicans would have definitely had the support and backing of Americans to remove her from office for it if she was POTUS. Overwhelmingly.

Until then their heads will stay planted because there is no repercussions from the American voter for Republicans actions.