Donald J. Trump has been impeached by the House

Gulliotine said:
At this point, there's only one thing left to wager.

How many Democrat Senators will vote tomorrow to acquit?

I say 2 for sure. Manchen and the Democrat from Arizona who's name escapes me at the moment.
Click to expand...

Jones from Alabama, if not he probably loses to Jeff Sessions next time around.
 
Happygoluckky said:
They really do not witnesses and now are blocking Bolton book from being released.

More details leaking out.


View attachment 5673
Click to expand...

giphy.gif



This MUST be the One!!!



2k8jjv.gif
 
joesports said:
Do you even understand the process?
The house is like a grand jury ... they investigate the "charges" if the see enough evidence to move forward they file articles of impeachments(indictments) ... in a grand jury the prosecutor calls witnesses very rarely do they ever call rebuttal witnesses ... that is usually left to the trial ... even at trial, in most cases there are many more prosecution witness than defense witness ... because they need to prove something ... the defense does not need to prove innocence ... but, they do have every opportunity to call witness (if they want) to rebut or disprove the charges (if they can) 17 to Zero means nothing ... the question is does Bolton have any information that would help prove or rebut evidence ... if so he should be called to testify

The idea if they get to call a witness we should get to call a witness too ... is stupid ... both sides should be able to call any witness if their testimony is germane to the case.
Click to expand...

poor joe
 
SWMCinci said:
Of course the truth damages Trump, but the question is if it rises to a level for impeachment, just like the increased scrutiny of Joe and Hunter damages the Bidens. The problem is that the Democrats made so many mistakes along the way that the result was inevitable. They attempted to build their case in a bunker, in what should have been a very open and public trial in the House. They brought in dozens of witnesses and some of them told them what they wanted to hear and they got excited and decided that they had their impeachable offense - enterprise sales reps call that "happy ears syndrome" where a prospect says exactly what a sales rep wants to hear and they think they have a whale on the hook, only to discover that they don't have the budget or power to make it happen.

The Democrats then picked the half dozen or so that told them what they wanted to hear and put them in public and they faded in the light of day. They said their piece and then under cross-examination their stories went from "I was there" to an REO Speedwagon meme ("heard it from a friend, who, heard it from a friend, who, heard it from another that you' been messin' around") that actually made the rounds better than the story the Democrats were trying to sell. Then there were the inevitable leaks and we find out that there are problems with the stories and problems with the "trusted" individuals, secret meetings, potential lawmaker interference, and THOSE stories actually made the rounds and people noticed what the media was willing to say - costing them even more credibility. Despite that, and after underwhelming the public with story after story after story, the Mueller Probe/Report, then the absolute failure of the Mueller Hearings, a search for tax records, business records, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels, whining about enforcing the border, false stories about border conditions, then child separations, anti-ICE actions, sanctuary cities/counties/states, etc. - they decide to impeach on emotion instead of actual crimes/misdeeds.

Because the House rushed their investigation/hearings/vote it was incomplete. Then despite the fact that they "had to move quickly because it was a national security/emergency to prevent further damage", they waited for a month to present their case to the Senate to try to dictate how the Senate was going to proceed. They wanted a "fair trial" in a situation where they had blocked Republican House members from being able to call any witnesses during the public hearings...… and everyone saw through that. The very 1st question yesterday (from Susan Collins on behalf of Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney) was very interesting (paraphrasing) "can there be a situation where something that is in the national interest also be of political benefit to a candidate"? The answer is yes, and that would call nearly every action by a politician into question because everything they do is in that realm.

That's really the heart of the matter for everything the Democrats hate about Trump, he seemingly does what he thinks is good for America. The fact that he and his friends and most of the citizens are vested in American success means that they will all benefit it America does. Like the CEO and employees that own stock in their company. That doesn't make it wrong nor impeachable.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you will get an argument defending the dems strategy on how they ran the impeachment. The process did not serve them well but they did want it done before the election so the window was super tight. It was done so fast, I think Nancy holding the articles over Christmas was a good idea. The trial will still be done in January and a lot more storylines developed. At the end of the day, as much as the cult wants to believe otherwise, this will damage Trump. Bolton will talk. That will empower others to talk. More will be exposed in the Giuliani fiasco including what they did to that ambassador. It is super sordid stuff.

Trump does not do what he thinks is right for America. He does not think beyond his immediate interests. I do think that in his warped mind, he believes that what is good for him is good for the rest of the country but America is not the driver of his actions. It is painfully obvious.
 
For senior officials like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton and their staffs to ignore subpoena's, block witnesses and refuse to give any access to documents is not how America worked pre-trump. THis is without president and more closely resembles a corruption trial in Russia or the Middle East. American democracy is dying a slow death right in the daylight. A president can no longer be investigated, questioned or called on for accountability...much less impeachment.
 
Happygoluckky said:
Dershowitz appears to have pulled the pin on the most insane grenade in the Trump arsenal. Even if there was an explicit quid pro quo, and even if it was authorized by Trump, and even if it was explicitly to help his re-election campaign, that *still* isn't impeachable, because he truly believes he is acting in the nation's best interest. Because (like any elected official) he truly believes that electing him is in the nation's best interest.
Click to expand...


He's absolutely correct, though, of course.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
He's absolutely correct, though, of course.
Click to expand...
I will vote for the first candidate that says when elected if they will investigate Ivanka in China they will get a favor though...may special trade terms, a state visit, nuclear codes, military weapons...everything is on the table according to Dershowitz crazy legal theories.
 
Happygoluckky said:
For senior officials like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton and their staffs to ignore subpoena's, block witnesses and refuse to give any access to documents is not how America worked pre-trump. …...
Click to expand...

Sure it is, it's why Eric Holder was charged with Contempt of Congress. Then you have Obama's claim in order to hide "Fast and Furious" docs and witnesses among others. You might want to read or at least do a Google search before posting something that is easily checked.
 
Harrycrane said:
Could have fooled me about being angry . I like politics , I enjoy following but hardly obsessed as some are here so I don'[t get angry. I cite what is going on , some facts and some opinions , that's all . I don't reflexively call people stupid and dumb if they don't root for the same team or share my opinion or my take on facts . I was attacked from the first post to now as are most of the 15 percent. A little fighting back is normal. Very little of the time are actual points of facts disputed , just personal attacks . I mean guys lie Fish said my daughter deserved to be raped implying that I would let it happen. You have taken shots at my family . personal shots for what? You aren't angry? Insulting me and my family and then being a jerk-off when I don't reply , saying that whatever crap you spewed must be true if I don't respond? Freaking tool you are , period . Thought you were ok for a brief moment a while back , I was wrong.
Click to expand...


Did your mom leave something out for today in your weekly pill organizer ?
 
Harrycrane said:
Why not investigate something three years ago that happened that many or more years ago ? So if he wanted to investigate them , announce it , use our professional people to do it and go for it. Why didn't he do that ? he didn't even ask for an actual investigation . He asked for an announcement . They were never going to investigate it and you know it , because if they were to they would have done it years ago . There is no crime committed her, it's just smearing . Crack under questioning? How do you know? Do you even know the case at all ? Of course not because there is no real case here. The Republicans had the house in the last few years of the Obama administration right? The Senate also ? Why no investigation then?
Click to expand...


It could obviously be argued that BECAUSE Joe is a candidate for POTUS the events of 3 years ago MUST be investigated.

But that isn't necessary. There was no crime, even had there been an explicit quid pro quo.
 
Happygoluckky said:
They subpoenaed a bunch....Trump blocked. Trump attorneys refused to cooperate or even participate. Turley presented a different view of constitution than trump team yesterday....wow they moved the bar. Dershowitz is almost comical....he literally said if trump think he himself being elected is in the public interest it is not impeachable because he is acting in the national interest. It is a joke that no real law school graduate could possibly take seriously.
Click to expand...
Should have had the subpoenas enforced thru the courts then. That's on the Dems.
 
Harrycrane said:
I don't think the republicans want any witnesses at all . They are the ones who wanted no part of it because it was clear what Trump wanted and did .
Click to expand...
Of course they should not deviate from established precedent. They should not reward this type of behavior by House "leadership". Duh.
 
Harrycrane said:
I type . I am not yelling, angry , raving or anything but typing what I am
Thinking . You are dumb know nothing and are are pound for pound ? As obtuse as anyone out here. No anger , just fact . You are a mascot , a mediocre dude who stays in safe places here and in life . Just typing calmly and accurately
Click to expand...
Geez, Harry......you are a mess.

LOL
 
Harrycrane said:
And this means that his information was wrong in THIS case? How so ?
Click to expand...


The President sets the Foreign Policy - it's Not a Crime to Change or have Open Discussions on how to take Different Approaches or a Different view on how Foreign relations Evolve and change over Time

It's Quite Possible Every Presidential Adviser has a different View, All Views & Ideas are openly discussed and talked about.

Its Irritating that these Fricken Peons Run to Mommy just because the current Policy is abandoned, it's like their Participation Trophy gets Taken away

Notable Quote... Barrack Hussein "I've have more flexibility after my Reelection" Result = Putin Invades Crimea
 
joesports said:
OK ... I will play along ... the Senate is the jury ... and the house managers & Trump‘s team are lawyers ... so doesn’t that mean this is a trial ... and don’t they call witnesses at a trial????

Also if they were in jury room ... the lawyers would not have presented their respective cases ... but that happened ... where does that usually happen ... that‘s right a trial ... The Senate is charged with holding an Impeachment trial ... it is not called an impeachment deliberation!!!
Click to expand...

You poor man.
 
lotr10 said:
You don't? If the Biden's were engaged in questionable activities with the Ukraine it justifies Trump's desire to investigate those relationships. Who else but the current POTUS is in a position to ask a foreign government to investigate a previous VP if there is reasonable suspicion that the VP was out of line?

And this is clearly more then Hunter Biden trying to cash in on the family name. Biden, in his own words on video, bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company his son worked for fired! It's true that all Joe Biden may have been doing was to help root out corruption in the Ukraine. It's even more likely he was blackmailing the Ukraine to protect his sons lucrative relationship with Burisma.
Click to expand...
To me this is very similar to a trail on illegal search and seizure trial ... in a case like that the guilt or innocence of the accused is irrelevant to whether or not it was or was not a legal search ... in this case Bidens innocence or guilt does not say one way or the other about if Trump’s manner of getting that information was legal or illegal ... if Biden were to be shown to be innocent of trying to gain a personal favor ... would that make Trump guilty ... no ... just as if Biden is guilty does not show Trump’s innocence ... innocence or guilt of accused does not make the search legal or illegal ... it has no relevance in the question at hand.

With that said ... I would have no problem if Congress would call the Bidens to testify in a separate inquiry.
 
joesports said:
To me this is very similar to a trail on illegal search and seizure trial ... in a case like that the guilt or innocence of the accused is irrelevant to whether or not it was or was not a legal search ... in this case Bidens innocence or guilt does not say one way or the other about if Trump’s manner of getting that information was legal or illegal ... if Biden were to be shown to be innocent of trying to gain a personal favor ... would that make Trump guilty ... no ... just as if Biden is guilty does not show Trump’s innocence ... innocence or guilt of accused does not make the search legal or illegal ... it has no relevance in the question at hand.

With that said ... I would have no problem if Congress would call the Bidens to testify in a separate inquiry.
Click to expand...
joesports said:
To me this is very similar to a trail on illegal search and seizure trial ... in a case like that the guilt or innocence of the accused is irrelevant to whether or not it was or was not a legal search ... in this case Bidens innocence or guilt does not say one way or the other about if Trump’s manner of getting that information was legal or illegal ... if Biden were to be shown to be innocent of trying to gain a personal favor ... would that make Trump guilty ... no ... just as if Biden is guilty does not show Trump’s innocence ... innocence or guilt of accused does not make the search legal or illegal ... it has no relevance in the question at hand.

With that said ... I would have no problem if Congress would call the Bidens to testify in a separate inquiry.
Click to expand...
How the Hell are we gonna' have a coup d'etat if you have rules, and laws, and stuff? You'd never get a good coup off the ground that way. Come on!!! Think like a leftist...
 
SWMCinci said:
Jones from Alabama, if not he probably loses to Jeff Sessions next time around.
Click to expand...

Yep. Forgot that one.

I would love it if moron Mitt is the only GOP defector.

This is not my final answer, but I'm leaning towards a 52 - 48 bipartisan vote to acquit...tomorrow.
 
lotr10 said:
The objection is twofold:

1) Calling more witnesses could be viewed as the Senate conveying credibility to the baseless charges that the democrats have ginned up in support of their impeachment.

2) There is also concern that the ONLY witness called will be Bolton in a desperate attempt to damage the POTUS. Given that the congress restricted witnesses to primarily those that could hurt Trump there is concern that the limp Senate would follow suit.

The democrat leadership in the Senate has already gone on record that they don't want any of the witnesses I listed to be called to testify. They are calling for one and ONLY one additional witness and that's Bolton.

And for the record, I would be fine with more witnesses being called as part of an effort to retry the impeachment in the Senate. Espeacially since the Congress conducted the equivalent of a kangaroo court. Trump would likely benefit from America hearing from a number of additional witnesses. But there is an institutional price to pay for retrying the impeachment in the Senate. So while we've been destroying institutions in an effort to nail Trump we might as well damage them protecting the POTUS. Fair is fair.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about calling witnesses. I'd add these points:

3) Since the Dems have thumbed their nose at the expressed rules for Impeachment, much of the established precedent for Impeachment, and even basic American legal concepts like "due process under the Law", we cannot implicitly endorse their flawed operation by acquiescing at this point.

4) We all know that this is a non-starter, even the Dems, and this whole thing is nothing more than a pre-election publicity stunt. It is a waste of time and an insult to the process.


In spite of the infantile analogies like "the House is like a Grand Jury indictment.." from media honks that some of us have absorbed into our supposed knowledge base of "how this works", the House Dems have done very little that is actually legal here. Yet they are in large part educated lawyers, with scads of lawyers at their disposal. Why proceed in the manner that they have ? Because they are more worried about House re-election of Democrats. They IGNORED the LAW because they believe this approach better fits a pre-electoral timetable and minimizes their negative exposure. It's obvious that Ciarmella-whistleblower was among several entrenched anti-Trump activists and was literally cultivated by Schiff.

You've expressed concern that, going forward, "every President will be Impeached" if the House is controlled by the opposition party. Why would you encourage similar behavior in the future by indulging them in this gambit now ?
 
Last edited:
joesports said:
Personally I don’t thinks the Bidens have relevant evidence on Trump’s action ... but I would agree that they should be investigated by congress and would like to see them answer questions about their actions ... although I not sure what Hunter Biden is being accused of .... I don’t think it is illegal to Profit off your last name ... if so Trumps, Bush, Clintons, Obama ... and most of Congress’ family members would be in trouble.
Click to expand...
Mr Neutral. lol
 
eastside_purple said:
He doesn’t have to have pure motives, he just needs to tell the truth. And nearly every former high level person from this admin is characterized as disgruntled by this president. Lol
Click to expand...
What is the truth? This will be a he said he said controversy because if they were the only two in the room no one can verify what was said. Also we really don't know what Bolton will/would say under oath. It's all speculation at this point based off "Oh my!" another leak which have not always proved to be as accurate as the MSM is so ready to share.

If Bolton's testimony is important, then the House should have had him provide his information during their process. The Democrats can't win a legitimate election so they are doing all they can to eliminate the viable competition.
 
Harrycrane said:
He didn't , the WORLD and our allies ALL wanted this guy to go , he was corrupt and not pursuing Corruption which was HIS JOB . so Biden was of curse happy that the guy was gone , NOT because he was pursing his son because he WASN'T ;pursuing him , In fact he wasn';t doing his job which included investigating corruption and that's why the International community including our allies wanted him gone and it was our policy that got rid of him not some decision by the Vice President who actually has little power in actuality to do these things. Was it bad form to crow a bit? May be , but there was nothing wrong with this guy being fired. The false Republican pro Trump lying narrative is Biden had him fired to stop his investigation of his son is ridiculous false and a lie perpetuated by a serially lying administration
Click to expand...
Then why would there be any concern about further investigation ? The same arguments for "why not have Senate witnesses if nothing illegal took place" applies here as well Harry.
 
my2sense said:
What was his motive of telling the story? Sure sounds like he was bragging about his influence and his flexing on the Ukranian leaders. Not a good look for a guy aspiring to grab even more power. Isn't that the kind of attitude you guys hate in Trump?
Click to expand...

It DEMANDS investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top