Impeachment Hearings

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I don't make things up.  I do listen to the radio, a lot.  I hear lots of things, audio clips from many sources.  I don't write it all down, but remembering hearing things does stick in my mind.  Many times I hear these quotes in the process of working, which even further clouds the source and exact content of what they said, but the general message is generally what sticks with me.

So, I guess I might say I'm sorry, but not sorry, that I'm unable to provide you with "the list" you are looking to pick apart.

But, don't forget one thing.  Trump is acquitted, and it's fantastic!

So you’re saying that you merely repeated something that someone else made up.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-31-2020, 10:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: "Fantastic" to see our country move further away from a democratic society.

It really is amazing how little people care for the ideals that founded this country.

No, it's really fantastic to see a quest that was started before the man was even elected, put to rest.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 09:58 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: No. Not what I said nor what I implied. When will the dems stop wasting the countries money trying to witch hunt an elected president is what I'm kinda, sorta asking. A complete waste of 3yrs of doing nothing for the people. And the dems say Trump is the one dividing it? 


Not sure how to interpret your reply, so I guess I won't interpret it at all.

How exactly is it a witch hunt to investigate something that multiple GOP senators agreed occurred and labeled “impeachable” and “inappropriate”?

You can argue it’s a waste of time because the GOP wouldn’t ever remove Trump, but you can’t call it a witch hunt when the GOP agrees it occurred.

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 10:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, it's really fantastic to see a quest that was started before the man was even elected, put to rest.

The inquiry began this September. It’s also not put to rest. The House is still investigating it. They’ll likely try again to get Bolton to testify given his claims. It’s called Congressional Oversight.

[BmorePat87]

CPAC announced that Romney isn’t welcome this year because he voted for witnesses lol

[NATI BENGALS]

Wow. The swamp is alive and well. In fact it is doing better than ever.

Disgraceful

[HarleyDog]

(01-31-2020, 08:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Marco Rubio and Lamar Alexander both stated that they believe he did it. Are you suggesting those GOP senators are part of this “set up” and have strong hatred for the President?

No, I did not state that at all. But for someone to act like the Democrats have not targeted Trump ever since the day of election is like someone lost in a fog. You can listen to all the bull that the media gives you and come to a wild conclusion if you wish. However, I just did not agree with what the media was saying. They have often shown their bias.

(01-31-2020, 08:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: 75% wanted witnesses.  

There's delusional and there is crazy whatever your post is.  Not even on the chart. 

I’m really not even sure what you mean about that? But I can tell you this, for the same poll that you find 75% wanted witnesses, there is another pole out there somewhere that says that they didn’t. I mean wasn’t it the polls that made America think that Hillary was going to win in the first place and thought it was a landslide?

(01-31-2020, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first thing I'd like to point out is the claim that Clinton called all Trump supporters "deplorables" is wrong. This is a misrepresentation of her statement by the media you listen to and the GOP. I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out in response to your diatribe about the "dems" [sic] and the sarcastic implications referring to CNN as "trusted." Glass houses, pots, kettles, all that stuff.

The other thing I'd like to say is in reference to the whole idea of the Dems not accepting the election results. Let's be clear, there were not challenges to the election by the mainstream Dems. There were no attempts to prevent the inauguration by the Dems. What there have been has been attempts to hold Trump accountable for abusing his office and violating the norms that are the guardrails of our democracy. The Republicans and the right-wing media like to call this an attempt to overturn the election which, quite frankly, is completely asinine. The job of Congress, contrary to what the Senate is claiming in this trial, is to provide oversight to the Executive. Flat out. That means using methods up to and including impeachment when the POTUS carries out an action that violates the laws or constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor (which, spoiler alert, means abuse of power). Using those tools is not "overturning an election" nor is it "not accepting the election." It is a constitutional duty.

Everything you and Sunset spew in here in regards to this is straight up propaganda laden horse shit. I have complained time and time again about actions the Democrats have taken in regards to Trump, I've even praised Trump on more than one occasion in this forum. I've also lamented the overreaching executive powers that occurred during the Obama years. I am for the rule of law and a well functioning democracy. Trump's actions and the GOP allowing it to go on is a threat to both of those things. That's not a partisan statement; it is as close to a fact as you can get when it comes to this sort of thing.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I had to put it out there. It's utterly ridiculous that so many people have fallen prey to this systematic destruction of our democracy and they cheer for it. Supporting the GOP in these actions is literally destroying what the framers of our country set up and it's ***** pitiful to watch.

I read your whole post and I will respond to one part. To say that people who don’t agree with the BS that is flying around with the propaganda laden horseshit, could very well point back to you and several others. Money moves mountains, don’t act like Trump is the only one with the cash. The Democrats have wasted a lot of Americas money pursuing revenge over a lost election. That alone is schoolyard BS. They need to grow up and serve the American people and stop pursuing vengeance.

(01-31-2020, 08:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm gonna add that the one consistent thing about this is Trump is going to "win" and conservatives are STILL angry.

They never seem happy and then say "liburals" are always yelling and screaming.

Kinda funny.

Kinda sad.

The only thing that conservatives are upset about is the constant bashing and constant targeting of the president that was elected by the people. Democrats have spent the last three years doing nothing but trying to unseat the president. That is what is upsetting. Do I agree with everything that Trump tweets? No I do not. Do I think that he acts like a child sometimes with his snarky remarks? Yes I do. But he’s the only president in many years that has actually tried to fulfill his campaign promises while the rest just lied to everyone and did little. 


To the response of all posted, this is simply my opinion. No real reason to argue about it because I watched a lot of this impeachment process and evidently seen a different picture than you did. This will be the case for a lot of Americans who watched this and seen a witchhunt. So can we get back to the business of America?

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2020, 11:37 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: No, I did not state that at all. But for someone to act like the Democrats have not targeted Trump ever since the day of election is like someone lost in a fog. You can listen to all the bull that the media gives you and come to a wild conclusion if you wish. However, I just did not agree with what the media was saying. They have often shown their bias.


To the response of all posted, this is simply my opinion. No real reason to argue about it because I watched a lot of this impeachment process and evidently seen a different picture than you did. This will be the case for a lot of Americans who watched this and seen a witchhunt. So can we get back to the business of America?

Dismissing something that these Senators publicly stated on their personal social media accounts as media lies isn't an opinion, it's just an incorrect statement.

I quoted Alexander's earlier from his twitter account. Here's Rubio's

My Statement On The President’s Impeachment Trial https://t.co/qTK7ddpWbR

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 31, 2020

[HarleyDog]

(01-31-2020, 11:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Dismissing something that these Senators publicly stated on their personal social media accounts as media lies isn't an opinion, it's just an incorrect statement.

I quoted Alexander's earlier from his twitter account. Here's Rubio's

My Statement On The President’s Impeachment Trial https://t.co/qTK7ddpWbR

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 31, 2020

You should read the whole article again and not focus on one sentence. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2020, 12:06 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: You should read the whole article again and not focus on one sentence. 

Already did. Glad you actually got to read it. Hopefully you'll now refrain from dismissing tweets from GOP senators as "bull that the media gives you". 

[HarleyDog]

(02-01-2020, 12:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Already did. Glad you actually got to read it. Hopefully you'll now refrain from dismissing tweets from GOP senators as "bull that the media gives you". 

Time to move on to SB and food.

https://www.delish.com/entertaining/g2171/super-bowl-food-menu/

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-31-2020, 08:05 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: The POTUS does not elect himself, of course you know that. However, when/if the people reelect Trump, it's because like myself, we did not believe the half truths and twisted comments put fourth by the dems. Does that make us all stupid hicks like CNN, one of your trusted sources, implied? Does it make us deplorables, like Hillary Clinton confessed? Or will you all finally respect the vote that the nation put fourth when re electing Trump and let the man do his job and work with him? I know the answer is no. 

I think there is going to be some investigations proving this was yet another setup - and not one who has condemned so heavily will accept that either because the hatred for the POTUS is pretty strong. Yet, remember the flack the Dems gave Trump when he asked by Hillary during the debate if he would accept the results of the election if he lost? His answer was that he would have to think about it and address it at that time. The dems hammered him, and I think there was even a thread in here bashing Trump. Hilary basically stated that not accepting the results of an election was a threat to our democracy. Trump won, and the dems since that election have been nothing short of what they proclaimed of Trumps answer. A threat to our democracy by not accepting the election.

There is one word in here that I want to highlight; respect.

I respect the outcome of the election. However, I don’t respect Trump as a man. I don’t respect the job he has done as president. He has accomplished some good, but overall he has done more harm than good. For instance, he is killing farmers with his tariffs. It’s bad. It makes me concerned there could be a tipping point where the farming industry reaches a tipping point from which they can’t recover and we lose our agricultural jobs to overseas competitors the same as manufacturing. Just one example.

I was/am against impeachment because I knew the Senate wouldn’t remove Trump. I thought the Democrats would be better served focusing on a platform to help people. If you can help people they will vote for you. If they vote for you, you can remove Trump from office during the next election. But, so far I’m not real happy with the field of potential candidates I may have to choose from when the time comes.

The other aspect of respect I wanted to mention is respect for the other side of the political aisle. I don’t remember the specifics of Hillary’s deplorable comment, but she shouldn’t have said it. It divides people rather than unifies them. I get the impression from reading your posts you feel disrespected. I think that disrespect reinforces what you already believe and maybe makes you less open minded to new information/ideas/opinions. I think the same applies to me. Trump doesn’t respect veterans except for his own self interest which makes me dislike him even more.

I just wanted to tell you I respect your opinions. I disagree on many things. But, I know we both want what’s best for this country. I think we probably agree on more things than we disagree on. I just don’t think we are going to change other people’s minds if we keep going on about it as we have recently. I don’t me you and me specially. I mean us as a country. Social media is filled with foreign propaganda. We don’t know when to trust the media because we’ve gone out of our way to slander and discredit the media. The politicians care more about holding on to office rather than accomplishing anything of substance while in office. I just don’t know how to go about fixing this.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-31-2020, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first thing I'd like to point out is the claim that Clinton called all Trump supporters "deplorables" is wrong. This is a misrepresentation of her statement by the media you listen to and the GOP. I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out in response to your diatribe about the "dems" [sic] and the sarcastic implications referring to CNN as "trusted." Glass houses, pots, kettles, all that stuff.

The other thing I'd like to say is in reference to the whole idea of the Dems not accepting the election results. Let's be clear, there were not challenges to the election by the mainstream Dems. There were no attempts to prevent the inauguration by the Dems. What there have been has been attempts to hold Trump accountable for abusing his office and violating the norms that are the guardrails of our democracy. The Republicans and the right-wing media like to call this an attempt to overturn the election which, quite frankly, is completely asinine. The job of Congress, contrary to what the Senate is claiming in this trial, is to provide oversight to the Executive. Flat out. That means using methods up to and including impeachment when the POTUS carries out an action that violates the laws or constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor (which, spoiler alert, means abuse of power). Using those tools is not "overturning an election" nor is it "not accepting the election." It is a constitutional duty.

Everything you and Sunset spew in here in regards to this is straight up propaganda laden horse shit. I have complained time and time again about actions the Democrats have taken in regards to Trump, I've even praised Trump on more than one occasion in this forum. I've also lamented the overreaching executive powers that occurred during the Obama years. I am for the rule of law and a well functioning democracy. Trump's actions and the GOP allowing it to go on is a threat to both of those things. That's not a partisan statement; it is as close to a fact as you can get when it comes to this sort of thing.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I had to put it out there. It's utterly ridiculous that so many people have fallen prey to this systematic destruction of our democracy and they cheer for it. Supporting the GOP in these actions is literally destroying what the framers of our country set up and it's ***** pitiful to watch.

I’d also like to say I have great respect for your opinions as well. I believe what you wrote to be the truth. However, I think you conveyed it in a way that will never change Harley’s or Sunset’s mind even if it is the truth.

[NATI BENGALS]

Glad my dry January is over. It won’t matter how much I drink. The Un-American Republican traitors in the senate will still be there when I wake up. But I have to think this absolute failure to uphold the constitution is going to stick with the majority of Americans for a long time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-31-2020, 08:50 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Wow. If there are awards for political cartoons this one gets my vote.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2020, 12:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I’d also like to say I have great respect for your opinions as well. I believe what you wrote to be the truth. However, I think you conveyed it in a way that will never change Harley’s or Sunset’s mind even if it is the truth.

There is a zero chance of convincing anyone on here. I took psychology classes on top of policy/poli sci because what is that all about but getting people to do what you want? I looked specifically at changing minds. There is nothing out there to suggest any method would work on an impersonal platform like this. It's why I usually just approach it with an "IDGAF, I am going to just call you out on your bullshit" mentality on here.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2020, 11:37 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I’m really not even sure what you mean about that? But I can tell you this, for the same poll that you find 75% wanted witnesses, there is another pole out there somewhere that says that they didn’t. I mean wasn’t it the polls that made America think that Hillary was going to win in the first place and thought it was a landslide?

Find that other "pole [sic]" that states the opposite. I won't bother waiting because it won't be found. I'm not sure how many times I have to go over how polling works and what happened in 2016, but I'm not going to bother reiterating it here for the nth time when plainly it has been ignored and replaced with propaganda.

(01-31-2020, 11:37 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I read your whole post and I will respond to one part. To say that people who don’t agree with the BS that is flying around with the propaganda laden horseshit, could very well point back to you and several others. Money moves mountains, don’t act like Trump is the only one with the cash. The Democrats have wasted a lot of Americas money pursuing revenge over a lost election. That alone is schoolyard BS. They need to grow up and serve the American people and stop pursuing vengeance.

Except not. The reason I know I'm not spewing propaganda is because I don't listen to it or read it. I don't consume commentary on news; I read primary documents and listen to primary sources. I watch C-SPAN for the trial information specifically so I don't have to deal with punditry. When I hear a politician come on the radio to talk about what's going on in Congress I turn it over to some music. I loathe partisanship and partisan politics.

It's telling to me that you consider facts to be propaganda, though. It just means that Trump and the GOP have set the hook on you like you'd set it fishing a jig for Florida bass.

(02-01-2020, 12:39 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I was/am against impeachment because I knew the Senate wouldn’t remove Trump. I thought the Democrats would be better served focusing on a platform to help people. If you can help people they will vote for you. If they vote for you, you can remove Trump from office during the next election. But, so far I’m not real happy with the field of potential candidates I may have to choose from when the time comes.

Hard to do this when the Senate has decided not to legislate. 372 bills currently waiting action from the Senate that have passed the House going all the way back to the start of this Congress on 03 January, 2019. But this is not a message that is getting out. Instead, people are listening to Trump's lies about Democrats not doing anything. People aren't seeing results because McConnell refuses to legislate. He refuses to do his job.

[Belsnickel]

First the news that Cippolone was implicated in the corruption, and now this: https://apnews.com/9d2ed80ca912d18abd6650f55d2db935?fbclid=IwAR3e4I14-H0hGwUxM1LZa9wCi8ssfzExkAD9vzqv4Gd6LF7-hJIoxix3X4U

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

The Pennsylvania Avenue box appears to be the sole physical location of the Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group, a for-profit corporation co-owned by Sekulow. The firm has no website and is not listed in national legal directories. The District of Columbia Bar has no record of it, and no attorneys list it as their employer.

But Sekulow, 63, is registered as chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit Christian legal advocacy group based in an expansive Capitol Hill row house a short walk from the Senate chamber.

A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons. The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501©(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities.

The Republican National Committee has paid more than $250,000 to Sekulow’s for-profit CLA Group since 2017, when he was first named to Trump’s legal team as special counsel Robert Mueller was leading the Russia investigation, according to campaign disclosures.

Sekulow has been one of Trump’s most visible defenders, enduring as a trusted attorney for the president even as other of his lawyers have been sidelined or entangled in controversy.

In the impeachment trial, he has sought to present Trump as unfairly hounded by investigations, seizing on surveillance errors the FBI acknowledged making in the Russia probe and accusing Democrats of investigating the president over Ukraine simply because they couldn’t bring him down after the Mueller investigation.

Charity watchdogs for years have raised concerns about the blurred lines between for-profit businesses tied to Sekulow and the complex web of non-profit entities he and his family control.

The Associated Press reviewed 10 years of tax returns for the ACLJ and other charities tied to Sekulow, which are released to the public under federal law. The records from 2008 to 2017, the most recent year available, show that more than $65 million in charitable funds were paid to Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his nephew and corporations they own.

Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said Sekulow appears to be mixing his defense of Trump with his charitable endeavors. The group has issued a “Donor Alert” about ACLJ on its CharityWatch website.

“Charities are not supposed to be taking sides in partisan political activities, such as providing legal services to benefit a politician in an impeachment trial,” Borochoff said. “Regulators should investigate whether or not charitable resources, such as office, labor, equipment, etc., are being wrongly utilized to benefit Sekulow’s for-profit law firm.”

The address for CLA Group listed in recent court filings matches Carr Workplaces, a flex-space provider that rents out mini offices, individual desks and conference rooms for periods as brief as one hour. According to its website, the company also offers its customers “virtual offices” that include a mailbox and mail forwarding.

But, you know, "drain the swamp" and all that jazz.

I don't know if this is the most corrupt administration in our history, but is certainly the most openly corrupt.

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2020, 08:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: First the news that Cippolone was implicated in the corruption, and now this: https://apnews.com/9d2ed80ca912d18abd6650f55d2db935?fbclid=IwAR3e4I14-H0hGwUxM1LZa9wCi8ssfzExkAD9vzqv4Gd6LF7-hJIoxix3X4U


But, you know, "drain the swamp" and all that jazz.

I don't know if this is the most corrupt administration in our history, but is certainly the most openly corrupt.

The norm for Trump, though. His dad gave him illegal loans for his failing casino by sending his lawyers there to purchase millions in chips. Finding ways to skirt the law with payments is what he does.

[GMDino]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/01/30/politics/trump-impeachment-subpoena-hearing/index.html

Quote:In contrast with Trump legal team, Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas

Washington(CNN)A Justice Department lawyer said Thursday in federal court that the House can impeach a president over ignored subpoenas, a noted contrast to what lawyers for President Donald Trump are arguing at his Senate impeachment trial this week.



Asked by a federal judge what the House can do to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham said without hesitation that the House can use its impeachment powers, among other options, like withholding appropriations.


A few hours later, lead Democratic House manager Adam Schiff mentioned Burnham's assertion during Trump's impeachment trial.

"In the category of you can't make this stuff up," Schiff said on the Senate floor. "The judge says if the Congress can't enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there? And the Justice Department lawyer's response is impeachment."
Eliciting laughter from the senators, Schiff, a California Democrat, continued, "You can't make this up. I mean, what more evidence do we need of the bad faith of this effort to cover up?"


Trump is fighting charges of abuse of power over his Ukraine dealings, and obstructing Congress for ordering his aides to defy subpoenas. Trump's lawyers say the President was lawfully protecting the executive branch in a dispute with Congress over documents and testimony.


During the court hearing, in response to Burnham's suggestion about impeachment, Judge Randolph Moss responded, "that is really not a great state of affairs for this country," if the House should impeach the President over every subpoena that his administration ignores.


The topic came up in a hearing about the 2020 census. The House Oversight Committee sued the Justice Department and Commerce Department in November, asking a judge to enforce its subpoenas for documents. The case revolves around the controversial and ultimately unsuccessful attempt by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the census.


Even though the case isn't about impeachment, the judge's actions could influence other impeachment-related cases, and the arguments several times danced near major issues appearing in the Senate impeachment trial. Several cases on related issues are currently being litigated.


Moss repeatedly pressed Burnham to explain what the House can do if a subpoena is ignored -- and if they don't have many options, the subpoenas are more like voluntary requests. The Justice Department has argued that the House can't ask the courts to enforce subpoenas.


Throughout the impeachment inquiry, Trump's lawyers urged senators to acquit Trump on the obstruction charge, which House Democrats approved after Trump told senior aides not to testify, even those with firsthand knowledge in the Ukraine affair. He also directed the State Department and Pentagon, and other agencies, not to hand over subpoenaed documents.


"Mere assertion of a privilege or objection in a legitimate interbranch dispute is a constitutional prerogative," Trump lawyer Robert Ray said Monday. "It should never result in an impeachable offense for abuse of power or obstruction of Congress."
Hours after the court hearing and the Senate discussion, the Justice Department tried to downplay Burnham's statements about impeachment.

"The point we made in court is simply that Congress has numerous political tools it can use in battles with the Executive Branch -- appropriations, legislation, nominations, and potentially in some circumstances even impeachment," said department spokeswoman Brianna Herlihy.


Later in the hearing, Burnham explained why the Trump administration believes it's not contradicting itself during the impeachment trial.


Burnham said the Democratic-controlled House wants to have it both ways: It wants to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress and also ask courts to enforce its subpoenas for executive branch information.


And, Burnham conceded, the Trump administration wants it both ways, too -- no impeachment, and no court cases.
"They are hypocrites. We are hypocrites, I guess," Burnham said in court Thursday. Many of the lawyers in the nearly packed courtroom laughed.


In court, the Justice Department has maintained for months that judges shouldn't have power to settle standoffs between Congress and the White House.

This week, the House used its ongoing cases to pummel the Justice Department over their apparent inconsistencies with Trump's legal arguments in the Senate. The House raised the contradiction over several court filings in cases that relate to Congressional subpoena power as it investigates Trump, pointing out that the President's impeachment attorneys said the House should have gone to "the courthouse six blocks down" the street.

No, the hypocrisy is on one side.  The Democrats want to enforce the subpoenas and if the court says they can't they need another option to perform oversight.  Trump and the gop want to cover everything up and never have to answer anything at all.