Impeachment Hearings

[masonbengals fan]

(01-28-2020, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no path to follow.  There are no allegations.  How can you start an investigation when there is nothing to investigate?

If that's the case how thorough could the initial investigation been ? The one where it was all supposedly de-bunked ? 

 Honest question... I asked this the other day in another thread. Who did the investigating ? And how thorough was it ? 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no path to follow.  There are no allegations.  How can you start an investigation when there is nothing to investigate?

Well let me ask it this, and I'm happy to accept your expertise.  If you were on the defense team, and the rules of evidence don't really exist, would you bring up Hunter Biden and his job for one, and two,  what Biden said about the prosecutor.  Not lie, but just present it, and let people draw any inference they want, knowing you are playing to the whole country.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 03:36 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: If that's the case how thorough could the initial investigation been ? The one where it was all supposedly de-bunked ? 

 Honest question... I asked this the other day in another thread. Who did the investigating ? And how thorough was it ? 

Investigating into Biden getting the prosecutor fired? There would be no investigation because he was carrying out policy as directed by Congress and the White House.

(01-28-2020, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well let me ask it this, and I'm happy to accept your expertise.  If you were on the defense team, and the rules of evidence don't really exist, would you bring up Hunter Biden and his job for one, and two,  what Biden said about the prosecutor.  Not lie, but just present it, and let people draw any inference they want, knowing you are playing to the whole country.  

I am no defense attorney, but I would sure as hell bring it up as a defense. I get what you're saying here (and with prior posts) and completely agree.

Speaking for myself, my frustration with the defense is how so many Senators who absolutely know better are parroting the defense's argument. Senators that supported the efforts of Biden at the direction of Obama are now trying to cast aspersions due to partisanship while being under oath to render impartial justice.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well let me ask it this, and I'm happy to accept your expertise.  If you were on the defense team, and the rules of evidence don't really exist, would you bring up Hunter Biden and his job for one, and two,  what Biden said about the prosecutor.  Not lie, but just present it, and let people draw any inference they want, knowing you are playing to the whole country.  

Seems stupid to me.

How can you claim Joe was protecting his son from investigation into corruption when he got a prosecutor fired for failing to investigate corruption.

If Hunter was corrupt then Joe would protect him more by making sure the prosecutor who failed to investigate corruption DID NOT get removed from his position.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-27-2020, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I believe that the White House Counsel highlighted a very specific instance involving Obama and aid to Egypt.  As I said previously, most foreign aid has some sort of conditions attached, and that is just how it goes.

Why are the Democrats trying to make a big deal out of Trump admin. pausing aid, when it's pretty much S.O.P. in American Foreign Policy decision making?

The entire Articles of Impeachment that the Democrats brought is a flimsy house of cards that only makes sense if you close your eyes, wish real hard, and swear on the Necromonicon that you hate Donald Trump..  

I agree foreign aid comes with conditions. Those conditions promote our national security or foreign policy objectives. Those objectives should benefit the nation which in turn should benefit me. They should benefit you. They should benefit our families.

Trump’s condition to announce an investigation into a political rival benefits only him personally as a political candidate. It only serves to weaken our democratic elections by knowing inviting more foreign interference in a presidential election! It also compromises our national security and foreign policy objectives as approved by Congress. That’s why it’s a big deal.

That’s not even opening the can of worms regarding the lies and conspiracy to cover up his actions or the continued obstruction of justice and Congress to impede their role of oversight.

Bottom line, Trump invited a foreign country to knowingly interfere with our next presidential election for his benefit. I loathe to use the “C” word because I know it triggers some “folks, but holding secret meetings with a foreign government to arrange an agreement for election interfere is collusion. I don’t believe anyone here believes that is a good precedent to set for future elections.

[jj22]

Hopefully everyone is following Ivanka putting her foot in her mouth and causing social media to dig up all the "perks" she's gotten being a Trump including current deals that are clearly cause for concern as it relates to conflicts of interest.

They hypocrisy in this day of social media doesn't work like it used to.

As for witnesses. Common sense says if Trump supporters/defenders thought he was innocent they'd be all for calling witnesses. They don't and know there are no witnesses that can clear him.

Common sense politics. Until folks use common sense, they'll continue to get played by the GOP who unlike any other party takes advantage of their constituents.

[jj22]

(01-28-2020, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree foreign aid comes with conditions. Those conditions promote our national security or foreign policy objectives. Those objectives should benefit the nation which in turn should benefit me. They should benefit you. They should benefit our families.

Trump’s condition to announce an investigation into a political rival benefits only him personally as a political candidate. It only serves to weaken our democratic elections by knowing inviting more foreign interference in a presidential election! It also compromises our national security and foreign policy objectives as approved by Congress. That’s why it’s a big deal.

That’s not even opening the can of worms regarding the lies and conspiracy to cover up his actions or the continued obstruction of justice and Congress to impede their role of oversight.

Bottom line, Trump invited a foreign country to knowingly interfere with our next presidential election for his benefit. I loathe to use the “C” word because I know it triggers some “folks, but holding secret meetings with a foreign government to arrange an agreement for election interfere is collusion. I don’t believe anyone here believes that is a good precedent to set for future elections.

I agree.

And I'll add my words not that you feel the same. But when did any other president hold aid in hopes a country would attack a political opponent in the hopes it helps them win another election? This after getting busted working with Russia to win 2016. Americans like their Presidents to win on their own accord. Not one who continuously needs help from foreign countries. That's not winning, that's lame.

If Trump defenders want to say Obama did the same, they are going to have to prove it. They can't just keep saying it and thinking we'll get conned like they are. They are just falling for another con job, and have no respect for themselves to stand up and demand to be treated like they have some sense. Until they do they will continue to get treated like fools.

They got fooled once, and that wasn't on them. This is like the 1000th time now.....

[jj22]

https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivanka-trump-china-trademarks/

[jj22]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/business/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-net-worth.html

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 04:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: I agree.

And I'll add my words not that you feel the same. But when did any other president hold aid in hopes a country would attack a political opponent in the hopes it helps them win another election? This after getting busted working with Russia to win 2016. Americans like their Presidents to win on their own accord. Not one who continuously needs help from foreign countries. That's not winning, that's lame.

If Trump defenders want to say Obama did the same, they are going to have to prove it. They can't just keep saying it and thinking we'll get conned like they are. They are just falling for another con job, and have no respect for themselves to stand up and demand to be treated like they have some sense. Until they do they will continue to get treated like fools.

They got fooled once, and that wasn't on them. This is like the 1000th time now.....

To be honest we have no idea what Presidents have done.  Most never comes to light i imagine.  

[jj22]

Except Obama dealt with a Republican Senate/House. You trying to say they covered for him?

I can tell you no other President needed a foreign country to attack America and our Democracy to win elections. This "just because Trump did it everyone must have" excuse falls on deaf ears to me.

I think it's extremely disrespectful to sour all of our Presidents because of Trumps actions.

Trump isn't like any President we've seen and to say his actions represent all Presidents highlights our Democracy and Constitution is over. Which it did last an exceptionally long time so the time probably was coming. That is what this impeachment is about. Are we a Democracy with a Constitution? or are we under a Dictatorship.

Obama made the mistake of saying Americans don't want to be under a Dictatorship (Monarch) at the 2016 Convention. It's looking more and more like he was wrong.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 04:57 PM)jj22 Wrote: Except Obama dealt with a Republican Senate/House. You trying to say they covered for him?

I can tell you no other President needed a foreign country to attack America and our Democracy. This just because Trump did it everyone must have excuse falls on deaf ears to me.

I think it's extremely disrespectful to sour all of our Presidents because of Trumps actions.

The House would have never known about it if someone didn't hear of it and tell them.  I don't care if it falls on deaf ears, but you made a declarative statement that you have no way of knowing. I never said Trump did it so everyone must have, I said you don't know everything they've done.  If not this exact scenario then something different but equally serious.  

[BmorePat87]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/john-kelly-believe-john-bolton-107739?fbclid=IwAR0OJT2CGe_qO_9vazMpUT4R7d2_lOlY3fEb4mdeAZBOW9hLWoJfKugrkZM

John Kelly says that if Bolton put it in his book, he believes it.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/john-kelly-believe-john-bolton-107739?fbclid=IwAR0OJT2CGe_qO_9vazMpUT4R7d2_lOlY3fEb4mdeAZBOW9hLWoJfKugrkZM

John Kelly says that if Bolton put it in his book, he believes it.

I gotta say, watching the left embrace Bolton kinds of makes it all worth it.   (I know John Kelly isn't from the left, but just in general.)

[jj22]

(01-28-2020, 05:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The House would have never known about it if someone didn't hear of it and tell them.  I don't care if it falls on deaf ears, but you made a declarative statement that you have no way of knowing.  I never said Trump did it so everyone must have, I said you don't know everything they've done.  If not this exact scenario then something different but equally serious.  

There have been whistleblowers for years. Throughout all Administrations. People in Government are not all made up of one party regardless of how Trump try's to act like these agency's work for him. That's why you saw the leaks on Hillary and the FBI investigation in 2016 while under a Democratic President. Those Republicans/Trump supporters who leaked would have surely leaked or blew the whistle on Obama (Bush, Clinton, Reagan etc.).

You've let one sour apple ruin the bunch. But that is just a way Americans try to excuse turning on America and our Constitution and accepting this behavior when they want to defend Trump. It's not realistic to how our Democracy has worked, or our Constitution was established.

What we are learning is that Republicans and Trump supporters know nothing about the Constitution outside of the 2nd Amendment. Or they more likely just don't care.

[BmorePat87]

(01-28-2020, 05:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I gotta say, watching the left embrace Bolton kinds of makes it all worth it.   (I know John Kelly isn't from the left, but just in general.)

Eff his politics, but he has a reputation for talking straight. I get the comedy in it, as he has been a villain for so long for his super hawk policies.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: There have been whistleblowers for years. People in Government are not all made up of one party. That's why you saw the leaks on Hillary and the FBI investigation in 2016. Those Republicans/Trump supporters who leaked would have surely leaked or blew the whistle on Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan etc.

Stuff is kept pretty tight.  One guy in this instance heard something and decided to report it.  If that one guy didn't we would have never known about this.  Do you not think Trump has done other things to this degree of seriousness that you haven't heard about?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Eff his politics, but he has a reputation for talking straight. I get the comedy in it, as he has been a villain for so long for his super hawk policies.

That's all I'm saying.  I get my little chuckles where I can get them.

We use awful people to testify against awful people all the time in criminal courts. No different, but just a little humorous.

[jj22]

(01-28-2020, 05:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Stuff is kept pretty tight.  One guy in this instance heard something and decided to report it.  If that one guy didn't we would have never known about this.  Do you not think Trump has done other things to this degree of seriousness that you haven't heard about?

I don't think Republicans who held congress during the Obama years were covering for him.

No I don't think that.

As far as Trump, we've heard a ton of his wrongdoing over the last 3 years. Not much is being hid.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 05:12 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't think Republicans who held congress during the Obama years were covering for him.

No I don't think that.

They don't have to cover for him if they don't know.  So do you think it's possible Trump has done other things this serious that you don't know about?