House Democrat backs down from impeachment: 'I don't see the value of kicking him out of office'

joesports

Well-known member
Unfortunately, because the of the charade the dems are playing, you were not able to hear any public testimony from anyone whose private depositions were fully favorable to the president. It has been a 100% one-sided sham, and thus the opinion you formed is based on only half the story, and the wrong half at that. And even with all that, there is still nothing whatsoever that rises to an impeachable offense.
I agree, but not all the blame falls on the Dems ... Trump has refused to let some people directly involved testify as well.
 

Qcity

Well-known member
I agree, but not all the blame falls on the Dems ... Trump has refused to let some people directly involved testify as well.

As he should .................they started it, they made the rules, they have to answer for it.

The People have had enough of this bulls___t.
 

joesports

Well-known member
As he should .................they started it, they made the rules, they have to answer for it.

The People have had enough of this bulls___t.
I am sure how that makes a difference ... isn’t both sides wrong in not allowing all the witnesses to testify?

While I agree it is a waste of time ... we all know how this is going to turn out ... but I do believe the President did need to be called out for trying to get a personal/political favor for aid.
 

Qcity

Well-known member
His people will testify should it get to the Senate.

The only good thing about all this is that it continues to expose the corruption of the left/media/deep state, and it guarantees a landslide next November. I'll take it.
 

gneiss rocks

Well-known member
Not sure whistle-bowers claims have been proven false ... and I think its more likely Trump and associates claims proven false!!

Not sure why Trump supporters can't say ... yes, he did it, no he shouldn't have ... but it does not reach the level of an impeachable offense????
Do you remember when this all started? The dems and all the mainstream media said the whistle blower heard the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. They claimed among other things Trump said no money unless you... they claimed Trump said dig up dirt on Biden.
They never thought he would release the Transcript, yet Nancy decided to go on this info (propaganda mind frik) Trump then released the transcript and they immediately had to backpedal as it was nothing of the sort, yes all lies???
The so called whistle blower was third hand and Trump said none of what was reported.
Then you have Adam Schiff make up in front of congress admittedly a completely fabricated story and many (maybe you) believed all of it.

You are like so many that blindly believe The dem controlled propaganda machine or just do not pay attention.

This is basically what was being reported prior to the Transcript release. Watch the spin after the fiasco.
Why would he even do this, except to fool people?

This is the acctual Transcript, which you have to admit is pretty good and shows nothing to even raise a eyebrow as we do have a longstanding agreement to fight corruption.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
 
Last edited:
First off ... many people in this great nation have been convicted on second hand knowledge or circumstantial evidence ... why is that ... because very few people who were directly involved tell on themselves ... any sane person realize this!

Second, as just said if the previous post ... this is a debate forum, not a court of law ... stop hiding behind technicalities and form an opinion ... just tell me you don’t think he did it ... I am saying from what I have read and heard, IMO, it is pretty clear he did it ... but I don’t believe that it rises to level of an impeachable offense ... let the people decide whether they still want him as the President with the election.
The question isn't over whether second hand 'knowledge' can be used. The questions is whether second hand 'knowledge' carries as much weight as first hand knowledge.

I haven't heard a single bit of evidence to prove any guilt of anything. I've heard a few trump haters make huge assumptions and offer biased opinions.
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
joe is a guy arguing in another thread that Freddie Kitchens deserves another year because of the career tracks of Tomlin, Cowher, and Noll.

You guys are wasting your time.
 

Indiandad

Well-known member
Wow ... I should have know this was futile attempt ... Trump could shoot someone at noon in Times Square on a nationally televised event ... and most of you would call it “fake news “

So let me get this straight ... he held up the aid because of corruption (among other things) .... did that corruption magically go away two days after the whistle blower’s report came out ... or when they released the aid?

... to me the only real thing that is debatable on this is it an impeachable offense or not ... so let me hear why or why not it is impeachable!
He held up the aid temporarily.
It would have been illegal to withhold it permanently. Congress approved the money for fiscal year 2019. The money had to be dispersed in FY2019 which ended Sept. 30, 2019. Yhe money was held up as long as realistically possible.

As with most appropriation bills they do not state specific dates by which the money must be released by. They merely state the fiscal year and leave it up to the specific Government departments to disburse accordingly.
 

Red14

Active member
I don't care one way or the other, but my question is, isn't there other things our government should be doing than spending months, not days or weeks, trying to run out a President? I mean what else is falling by the wayside during this wild goose chase?
 

sapientia et veritas

Well-known member
He held up the aid temporarily.
As did Biden when he demanded that Ukraine fire a prosecutor.

Joe Biden said:
I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
So that's just statesmanship. Quid pro quo. You do for me or I won't do for you. The US does it all the time. The Ghouliani narrative is that Joe was protecting Hunter's business interests. The liberal narrative is that there's no evidence for that, and that it was simply removing a corrupt prosecutor. Well, whatever. It's still a massive conflict of interest.

Extorting a foreign government is regular business. I'm presuming that it's only a high crime or misdemeanor if it's done for personal interest.

Either way, the Senate won't remove Trump unless intent can be proven. It can't. Trump will just say that his intent was to do the quid pro quo in the public interest. His advisor told him that the former Vice President bribed Ukraine to end the prosecution into the company where his own son served as a board member.

My own opinion is pretty simple. Yes, Trump is a greedy crook, and he was most likely intending to take out a political opponent. And yes, Joe Biden is a greedy crook, and he was most likely intending to help out his son.

Before caving and retracting, the House Democrat just made the mistake of revealing the political deal that's already been made off stage from the ongoing political theater. Conviction yes. Removal no. Censure yes. Otherwise the Republicans in the Senate will have a free pass to conduct their own stage show under a different director during the critical public opinion shaping months of 2020 that will say that Trump just made an honest mistake trusting Ghouliani and paint the entire Democratic party as being accessories to Joe Biden's unprosecuted crime.

NB: My misspelling of Giuliani's name was intentional. He's a despicable person, and I hope against common sense that he gets convicted of something in all of this.
 

Qcity

Well-known member
The GOP Senate wants to figure out a way not have to public defend Trump on record. They are trying to protect their legacy and how history views them and the facts are not on their side.

When you are innocent, you don't need defending.



Good luck.
 

Altor

Well-known member
The GOP Senate wants to figure out a way not have to public defend Trump on record. They are trying to protect their legacy and how history views them and the facts are not on their side.
There's a very easy way to not have to defend Trump: make the Dems prove the crime. If I were Mitch, we would be passing rules for the Senate trial that would include the Federal Rules for Evidence. Everytime the Dems called a witness who was only giving hearsay testimony or testifying to the mindset of the defendent, have a Senator object and let Justice Roberts rule.
 

Happygoluckky

Well-known member
There's a very easy way to not have to defend Trump: make the Dems prove the crime. If I were Mitch, we would be passing rules for the Senate trial that would include the Federal Rules for Evidence. Everytime the Dems called a witness who was only giving hearsay testimony or testifying to the mindset of the defendent, have a Senator object and let Justice Roberts rule.
Hence use the Obstruction of Congress to clear the criminal of the crime. Good Plan!
 

fish82

Well-known member
Hopefully Cocaine Mitch simply dismisses the articles out of hand. Slappy's tears would be awesome lol.
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
The GOP Senate wants to figure out a way not have to public defend Trump on record. They are trying to protect their legacy and how history views them and the facts are not on their side.
There are certainly individuals that do not wish to defend Trump. There won’t really have to be much of that, though, so I wouldn’t worry.
 

Irwin20

Well-known member

Happygoluckky

Well-known member
The only first hand witness to anything, the Ukrainian President ,and they don’t believe him.
Yes I am sure the Ukrainian Potus dumpin on the potus while needing support is a great political move. He is a hostage with a gun to his head. Meanwhile the potus is sitting with his enemy in the oval office. (Gotta wonder if Putin demanded that meeting just to troll and whether Trump has a choice) Party of Putin
 

Red14

Active member
My understanding is that even if the House votes to impeach him and it does happen, it will never get through the republican dominate Sentate. So what's the point? And how much time has been wasted the last few months on this? Just tell me when something significant happens.
 
.
Top