trump Inpeachment...............

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Corruption case - what corruption case is there that involves Hunter Biden? Burisma was "under investigation" before Hunter joined.

Trump saying he wanted Ukraine to announce and start an investigation into Hunter doesnt mean there was any actual corruption involving Hunter.

Corruption involving Hunter has never been articulated at all. The appearance of conflict of interest and him being susceptible to undue foreign influence is certainly there.

I personally wouldnt want a VP's son to be working for a foreign company bc he would be susceptible to foreign influence.

Yet to Trumpers ... "susceptible to foreign influence" is perfectly fine when it comes to the WH over ruling Kared Kushners denial of security clearance by the House Oversight Committee ..

She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.

The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.

The United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico reportedly discussed such efforts, current and former officials told the paper.

The New York Times reported in February that Trump ordered Kushner be given top-secret security clearances despite concerns raised by the intelligence community. Cummings's memo did not mention Kushner or any other specific individuals, but Reuters reported Monday that Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, President Trump's daughter, are among the individuals who received clearance despite warnings from experts.
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...rns-of-foreign

--------------------

Its the hypocrisy from trumpers on the right and the far left that make this whole thing absurd to me. Hunter should have never been on that board, Ivanka/Jared should not be overridden by the intelligence community and given top secret clearance.

Bringing up Hunter's marriage and cocaine use? LOL ... dude, your trump guy has done way worse re moral character. How you can bring up a private citizens past and completely over look the parallel to the POTUS is ... astounding but sadly expected.

Chico ... you seem to be entrenched and bunkered down in your opinions. Thats your right but you seem to be yelling at people. IDk man ...

Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.

I honestly dont know enough about impeachment proceedings, I slept through Con Law I and II.

Clinton is the most recent and relevant. He wasnt impeached for any specific crime but for obstruction of justice and abuse of powers. Trump was impeached for ..... obstruction of justice and abuse of powers.

Clinton testified under oath to Ken Starr. Witnesses were called.

Trump should testify under oath and witnesses should be called.

Pelosi and the House should have issued subpoenas then went to the court to enforce those subpoenas, likely drawing out the process by a year or so. They shouldnt have expected a republican majority Senate to do additional fact finding.

Is this all a farce? Im kinda split. You cant have the POTUS with holding congress approved aid bc he wants a foreign country to announce an investigation into his rival. At the same time, it doesnt rise to the level of removing an elected president.

Hopefully Trump is out by 2020. If not, Ill put my head back in the sand for another 4 years.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Pelosi and the House should have issued subpoenas then went to the court to enforce those subpoenas, likely drawing out the process by a year or so. They shouldnt have expected a republican majority Senate to do additional fact finding.

I agree, but they didn't exactly because no one wants this to drag out for a year in the courts... which, they wouldn't have to, if Trump were willing to cooperate like Clinton. Instead, he wants to prevent a constitutional process from being carried out b refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Which an innocent person would have no reason to do.

Still, when it all plays out, I think the Democrats may wish they have taken this approach.

But, as Jim Zorn once said, Hindsights always 50/50

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.

What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

[sdskinsfan2001]

I'm retiring from this thread or any political thread. We all are who we are. No minds are being changed here. And it's probably a good thing an internet thread doesn't make us waffle.

I genuinely like every one that post on this site regularly. Look forward to talking about th Skins, music, tv, etc.


HTTR!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

I've said it before I'm all for it

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by mooby

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses - but not ANY witnesses - Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses - but not ANY witnesses - Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.

You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process

its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.

What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.

Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

Not what he said or asked ?