America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by teedubbya. 77 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Formal Impeachment Inquiry...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 4:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Discuss.
fishinguitarman Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 4:42 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Last grasp
rfenst Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 4:42 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
fishinguitarman wrote:
Last grasp

Who told you to say that?
fishinguitarman Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 4:44 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Tail
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
fishinguitarman wrote:
Tail

Figures.
Abrignac Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 6:22 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
That’s the risk taken when electing an egomaniac to the office. He just couldn’t keep his mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships.
teedubbya Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 6:22 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Who elected tail?
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 6:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Abrignac wrote:
That’s the risk taken when electing an egomaniac to the office. He just couldn’t keep his mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships.

From a legal defense perspective, he needs to not breath a single additional word about this and not tweet anything about it.
delta1 Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 7:33 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
I haven't seen the formal announcement of the scope of the impeachment inquiry...I'm guessing that it will be limited to the Ukrainian incident....

keep in mind that the House will only determine if there are grounds for impeachment, meaning a charge, or charges, against the POTUS for breach of a high crime or misdemeanor or abuse of power...Trump will be the best witness against himself...Abrignac nailed it when he said Trump is an egomaniac...there is enough evidence for impeachment....

the House would determine the "indictment", and would then send it to the Senate for trial to determine if there are grounds for removal from office.....

the standard of proof in such a case is much lower than in a criminal case...the Constitution itself does not set a standard of proof....you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach or to remove from office: Trump's own words establish that he did something beyond the norms of the power of his office....

but given the composition of the Senate, even if the evidence reveals Trump did commit high crimes and misdemeanors and abused his powers the GOP controlled Senate would not vote to remove Trump from office...

Speyside Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tail, is this news worthy? Robert, it is premature. We know nothing right now. Though an inquiry is not an impeachment. Right now I am more concerned that another law has been broken, that is verifiable.
JadeRose Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 7:57 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
teedubbya wrote:
Who elected tail?




Me, if he's replacing Stump. He might be an a$$hole but he's OUR a$shole and I can live with that.
delta1 Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 7:57 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
#10 ^ ...in a vacuum, an impeachment decision should be decided on its own, without political calculus about timing...

in reality, though, politics dictate the when...Mueller delivered a smoking gun, but the House refused to act...

then Trump did something even more egregious...basically saying he is above the law...the Russian thing/Mueller Report seemed to show Trump that he can use foreign influence to win elections and there are no consequences..... so he decided to double down with Ukraine to win the 2020 election while in office ..
fishinguitarman Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:16 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
TRUMP 2020!!!!
delta1 Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:49 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
hmmmm...that'd be interesting...if Trump were to be impeached and voted out of office by the Senate, could he be re-elected?

Is an impeachment conviction a disqualifier ?
Cheno Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 9:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-06-2019
Posts: 1,962
So if the documents that get released show nothing and nothing happens, you can thank the Democrats for helping getting Trump in 2020
frankj1 Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 9:56 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Cheno wrote:
So if the documents that get released show nothing and nothing happens, you can thank the Democrats for helping getting Trump in 2020

I'm a potential Dem vote that they have not won yet...like the last election I am leaning toward 3rd party so far.
A big factor is that the Dem will win my state, MA, so my vote is wasted whether I vote Dem or GOP...but maybe this time the third party will get the 15% needed to get on the stage for the next election debates.
izonfire Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Sep 24 2019, 10:18 PM EST
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,644
JadeRose wrote:
Me, if he's replacing Stump. He might be an a$$hole but he's OUR a$shole and I can live with that.


Then it’s our schitt to deal with...
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 6:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Speyside wrote:
Tail, is this news worthy? Robert, it is premature. We know nothing right now. Though an inquiry is not an impeachment. Right now I am more concerned that another law has been broken, that is verifiable.

I want the recording(s) to be heard. Written transcripts produced by an accused are not necessarily as credible.
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 7:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Dems have already said the phone transcript won't be enough... release one transcript and they want 50.. Not talking
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 7:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
And it's all a waste of time... the Senate won't impeach... Mellow
Speyside Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 7:33 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Drafter, he would already be impeached, just as Clinton was. That is done by the house. The Senate convicts, which they will not. Robert, I agree, the recording would be best, but is there a legal remedy to force it's release? As I understand it the law requires the inspector generals report to be forwarded. But mentions nothing about the recorded conversation.
dstieger Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
rfenst wrote:
Formal Impeachment Inquiry... .

How will this differ from the naddling schifshow that's been in re-runs for the past many months?
Buckwheat Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Why worry? If he hasn't done anything wrong he should have nothing to fear. fog
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:17 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Speyside wrote:
Robert, I agree, the recording would be best, but is there a legal remedy to force it's release? As I understand it the law requires the inspector generals report to be forwarded. But mentions nothing about the recorded conversation.

I don't know, but i feel confident there is. Congressional committee subpoena?
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:20 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
dstieger wrote:
How will this differ from the naddling schifshow that's been in re-runs for the past many months?

I think it is that the majority of the House is behind the inquiry.
dstieger Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1998-12-18/pdf/CREC-1998-12-18-pt1-PgH11774.pdf

Interesting historical stroll through above document.....

Can you name the speaker of these quotes?

"Mr. Speaker, the
precedents show and the Nation’s leading scholars and historians overwhelm-
ingly agree that impeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for
abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of
government or of constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punish-
ment for crimes but as a protection against the President who would abuse
his powers to make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called
impeachment a substitute for assassination.............
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We
must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to
defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a
dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of
the American people. There must never be a narrowly
voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political
parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisive-
ness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into ques-
tion the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
The American people have heard the allegations against the President, and
they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected (the) President, they still support him. We have no
right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job....
The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may have
the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of
a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan coup
d’etat will go down in infamy in the history of this Nation."
DrafterX Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
How does a House impeachment inquiry start?

This has been a subject of dispute. During the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts, the full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former federal judge in 1989, began at the committee level.

The House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has claimed — including in court filings — that the panel is already engaged in an impeachment investigation. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that since there has been no House resolution, the committee is just engaged in a routine oversight proceeding.

Ms. Pelosi did not say in her announcement that she intended to bring any resolution to the floor.

Whether or not it is necessary, it has not been clear whether a resolution to formally start an impeachment inquiry would pass a House vote, although the number of Democrats who support one has recently been surging. As of late Tuesday, The New York Times counted 203 members who said they favored impeachment proceedings, 88 who said they opposed them or were undecided, and 144 who had not responded to the question.

Think
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
dstieger wrote:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1998-12-18/pdf/CREC-1998-12-18-pt1-PgH11774.pdf

Interesting historical stroll through above document.....

Can you name the speaker of these quotes?

"Mr. Speaker, the
precedents show and the Nation’s leading scholars and historians overwhelm-
ingly agree that impeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for
abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of
government or of constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punish-
ment for crimes but as a protection against the President who would abuse
his powers to make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called
impeachment a substitute for assassination.............
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We
must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to
defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a
dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of
the American people. There must never be a narrowly
voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political
parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisive-
ness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into ques-
tion the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
The American people have heard the allegations against the President, and
they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected (the) President, they still support him. We have no
right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job....
The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may have
the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of
a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan coup
d’etat will go down in infamy in the history of this Nation."






Axl wrote that man.... Mellow
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Benjamin Franklin
dstieger Offline
#30 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Page 13 of the cited House Record. December 18, 1998
rfenst Offline
#31 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:41 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Anyone else see Guilani's meltdown on FOX?
frankj1 Offline
#32 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 9:29 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
Axl wrote that man.... Mellow

excellent!
DrafterX Offline
#33 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Call has been released... nothing in there unusual in my opinion... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#34 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 9:43 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,580
^ good enough for me
tailgater Offline
#35 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
So when the next "big thing" happens and the left lose their collective sh*ts and scream about impeachment, will it be OK to remind them of Russia, er, I mean of this phone call gate?

I mean, even the tea party eventually gave up after the birth thingy.

The liberals have stamina, I'll give you that.

Looney as moon bats.
But tenacious as an MF'er that's for sure.
DrafterX Offline
#36 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Unfortunately this isn't over... they'll ask for more transcripts from calls with other leaders and when denied they'll accuse him of hiding something. Mellow
delta1 Offline
#37 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 11:31 AM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
the whistleblower complaint should be released, in its entirety, since that was the document that started this series of events...the whistleblower has also said he'd be willing to speak with the House Intel committee...

Transcripts of Trump's calls don't have much value, given Trump's propensity to sharpie stuff up...nothing the WH releases should be considered trustworthy, due to the POTUS's history of dishonesty...

there may be multiple calls and other behavior that led to the whistleblower complaint, so we should start by examining the complaint...if there aren't recordings, then all witnesses should be required to testify, rather than relying on WH transcripts...
dstieger Offline
#38 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
the whistleblower complaint should be released, in its entirety, since that was the document that started this series of events...the whistleblower has also said he'd be willing to speak with the House Intel committee...

Transcripts of Trump's calls don't have much value, given Trump's propensity to sharpie stuff up...nothing the WH releases should be considered trustworthy, due to the POTUS's history of dishonesty...

there may be multiple calls and other behavior that led to the whistleblower complaint, so we should start by examining the complaint...if there aren't recordings, then all witnesses should be required to testify, rather than relying on WH transcripts...


So.....The report from the person who said he heard someone say something should be released. No sense in making judgements based on what was actually said or done. In fact, maybe the guy who said he might have heard something...maybe he also thinks he heard more stuff.... Trump sucks....
DrafterX Offline
#39 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Told ya it wouldn't be enough... it sure was yesterday tho... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#40 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
dstieger wrote:
So.....The report from the person who said he heard someone say something should be released. No sense in making judgements based on what was actually said or done. In fact, maybe the guy who said he might have heard something...maybe he also thinks he heard more stuff.... Trump sucks....


I don't know what the complaint says and the notion that the whistleblower didn't witness any of the calls or behavior is also speculation...transcripts of calls, without back-up recordings, can be inaccurate...let's see the complaint...

Trump admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate a political opponent before the next election, while at the same time withholding military aid to the Ukraine...is this acceptable use of presidential power?
ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,580
Threaten to impeach if transcripts aren’t released.

Released.

Threaten to impeach if whistleblower report isn’t released. It’s going to be.

^ again Al.....can you NOT SEE the irony of your last sentence?!!!
dstieger Offline
#42 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 12:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
I don't know what the complaint says and the notion that the whistleblower didn't witness any of the calls or behavior is also speculation...transcripts of calls, without back-up recordings, can be inaccurate...let's see the complaint...

Trump admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate a political opponent before the next election, while at the same time withholding military aid to the Ukraine...is this acceptable use of presidential power?


Not acceptable to me. But, I've not seen enough to be convinced of that.

If you take Biden's current presidential run out of the equation....would Trump's request seem reasonable/acceptable? Maybe....if he thought that Joe and son truly had taken advantage of Ukrainian corruption....then would a suggestion to look into it be ok? Probably.

I'm not making a judgement one way or another....I just would like anyone who is making judgements here to go into each issue with a more open mind -- I sense that the anti-Trump bias clouds your reasoning sometimes, Al
DrafterX Offline
#43 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 12:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Al has a brain cloud..?? Huh
Abrignac Offline
#44 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 12:15 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
delta1 wrote:
I don't know what the complaint says and the notion that the whistleblower didn't witness any of the calls or behavior is also speculation...transcripts of calls, without back-up recordings, can be inaccurate...let's see the complaint...

Trump admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate a political opponent before the next election, while at the same time withholding military aid to the Ukraine...is this acceptable use of presidential power?


Let's get this correct. I read the transcript. Nowhere did I see he ask the President of the Ukraine to investigate a political opponent. He did however, request they investigate the son of a political opponent. More importantly what is wrong with asking a foreign government to help in an investigation. Hell, that's exactly what Interpol, which we are a member nation, does.


https://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/frequently-asked-questions#two wrote:
Is the United States a member of INTERPOL? Yes, the United States is a member of INTERPOL, as authorized by Title 22, United States Code §263a. As a condition of membership, the United States maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) in Washington, D.C., which serves to maintain liaison with the Organization’s General Secretariat in Lyon, France, and the National Central Bureaus of INTERPOL’s 189 other member countries. The United States also details (“seconds”) law enforcement officials to serve at INTERPOL Headquarters in Lyon, France.


At this point, its a big fat nothing burger.
ZRX1200 Offline
#45 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 12:53 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,580
He asked the current president as the last one was corrupt...

But let’s not talk about that either because that leads down a rabbit hole the left DOES NOT want to go down.
rfenst Offline
#46 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,251
Link to the Memo:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ukraine-unredacted-call-transcript-read-ukraine-president-released-by-white-house-today-2019-09-25-live-updates/
teedubbya Offline
#47 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 1:30 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Abrignac wrote:
Let's get this correct. I read the transcript. Nowhere did I see he ask the President of the Ukraine to investigate a political opponent. He did however, request they investigate the son of a political opponent. More importantly what is wrong with asking a foreign government to help in an investigation. Hell, that's exactly what Interpol, which we are a member nation, does.




At this point, its a big fat nothing burger.



I agree the President was simply acting like interpol .... LMAO



by the way, i'm still not for trying to remove him. the election should decide that. If we are stupid enough to reelect him we deserve what we get.


and I say investigate everyone and then investigate the investigations
DrafterX Offline
#48 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 1:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Investigate the Instigators too..!! Mad
teedubbya Offline
#49 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 1:34 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DrafterX wrote:
Investigate the Instigators too..!! Mad



That's just a given. And its time we all recognize the Prez is a kind caring giving man who is selflessly trying to help us and the Ukrainians and the press and other party simply need to get out of the way.
tailgater Offline
#50 Posted: Wed, Sep 25 2019, 1:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
teedubbya wrote:
I agree the President was simply acting like interpol .... LMAO



by the way, i'm still not for trying to remove him. the election should decide that. If we are stupid enough to reelect him we deserve what we get.


and I say investigate everyone and then investigate the investigations


Careful.
We might be stupid enough to reelect Trump.

Or we might be even stupider and elect someone like Warren.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top