Impeachment

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.

  1. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Yeah, he read reports of Taylor's testimony which pointed the finger directly at Sondland as telling Zelensky's aid that our Ukraine Aid package was dependent on Z publicly committing to the investigations. This was the primary reason for committees wanting Sondland to return for more testimony after "discrepancies" emerged between Sondland/Taylor testimonies.
     
  2. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Taylor's testimony couldn't prove anything though. It's a he said/he said situation. There's no way perjury could become a problem. Something is wrong about the whole thing and I'm sure Schiff is behind it.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    On top of that Sondland mentioned there was no quid pro quo in the text. Like I said having a corrupt man running this show is going to backfire on the dems.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    But Sondland would have had to answer questions regarding the discrepancy under oath. Are you suggesting he should have lied or is lying now?
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    You realize that Sondland stated in his testimony that Trump dictated that text directly, right? In other words, Sondland didn't believe it and was simply saying what Trump told him directly to say.

    Fortunately for Trump he always tells the truth, right? Right? RIGHT?
     
  6. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Don't know. The fact that we're hearing only one side of the story doesn't say much, does it? Republicans are saying a lot of what's being reported since this 2whole **** show began isn't true. We'll see.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  7. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    I don't know about that. Hell, we have a pathological liar running this clown show so the truth shouldn't matter much to you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The transcripts for Sondland and Volker were released today. The original 1-sided leak of the story is now validated with the actual transcript. The problem for Trump is that there isn't much in testimony of Volker, Sondland, McKinley, and Yovanovich to support his narrative. If there was you'd hear Zedlin, Meadows and Jordan touting the quotes. Each of these gentlemen had their chance to ask questions and did if you read the transcripts. The problem? The testimonies are fairly damning.
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The truth absolutely matters to me. How 'bout you?

    It's why I've skimmed most of the transcripts released so far. I trust the career bureaucrats over politicians.
     
  10. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    The only questions than can be asked have to meet Schiff's approval. Until we have full cross-examinations this is a one sided **** show. The transcripts are whatever Schiff says they are. On top of all of that Zelensky says something differently than what the witnesses say. Do you ask yourself why the dems are doing this the way they are doing?
     
  11. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Incorrect. Volker said that the Ukrainians didn't know about the holdup of military aid. Basicallly backing up what Zelensky said.
     
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's not true. Both Democrats and Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Seriously, just read the transcripts on Scribd.com and you'll see D's, R's and/or thrir representative lawyers. Did Schiff reportedly stop a question for Vindman? That's what the Trump supporters have said and we'll see the reality when his transcript is released. Other than a near universal attempt to stop the testimonies by the Freedom Caucus through procedural methods, I didn't catch a lot of interference by Schiff in the 4 transcripts released so far.
     
  13. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Dude, why do you think they're doing this **** behind doors? All these transcripts are what Schiff makes them out to be. Call me when we actually have open testimony with full cross -examination.
     
  14. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    If that's what you want to hang your hat on that's your prerogative. Of course then you also have to acknowledge that Volker implicated Guiliani and claimed his intentions were less than honorable while claiming Trump was directing him to work with Guiliani. I suspect that's why the Freedom Caucus isn't trumpeting his testimony more. It's a mixed bag if your ultimate intention is a defense of Trump.
     
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    What does that even mean? I can read a transcript to extrapolate what is said myself. Given how important this Impeachment inquiry is to our country, educating myse li f is preferable to sticking my fingers in my ears.
     
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    If Guliani was asked by the state department to go there then he has every right to be there. Is Guliani going too far? That possibly could be true.
     
  17. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    If you're worried about educating yourself what could be better than having the info first hand in the open. Personally, I will never trust this clown show behind closed doors ran by a known shady democrat.
     
  18. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Btw, Husker. Can the Republicans call witnesses?
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The open hearings are coming based on the process they voted on last week. I also agree with Trey Gowdy when he derided the grandstanding and peacocking that occurs when the cameras are on during open hearings. We have plenty of examples to show that occurs. Reading the transcripts, that happens less frequently in closed door sessions.

    Yes they can call them albeit the committee Chairman has veto authority which mirrors the House rules that were put in place by Republicans in 2016.

    Imagine a cavalcade of character witnesses by called by the minority party with the explicit intention of bogging down the process. I'm certain that's whst Republicans were concerned about when they implemented these rules.
     
  20. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    Dare I say TAINT!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    TAINT!!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I would definitely call Hunter
    But not Joe, unless it became necessary mandatory (for example, if Hunter perjured himself)

     
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Inside of newsrooms, broadcast studios, and Twitter, impeachment is going according to plan. Outside of those bubbles, it’s not."

    Real Talk: Impeachment Is Going Poorly For Democrats And The Media
     
  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Rickards is an interesting guy - not a big Trump lover
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    Second rate intellects and, based on this photo, third (or worse) rate attractiveness.
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  28. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    So, lot's of talk:

    1) Do we have direct evidence of a quid pro quo: "No investigation, then no $$$."
    2) If #1 is yes, is it a high crime or misdemeanor?
     
  29. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    Of interest about high crimes and misdemeanors. Excerpts below:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...ers-saw-impeachment-high-crimes-misdemeanors/

    "The initial clause borrowed from established concepts of impeachment in English law and state constitutions that allowed impeachment for “maladministration” — which means “basically just for being lousy at your job,” said Jeffrey A. Engel in an interview with The Washington Post. Engel is director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University and co-author of “Impeachment: An American History.”

    “And [James] Madison and [George] Mason and others, I think quite rightly, argued that if the standard is simply being ineffective or incompetent, well, that’s always in the eye of the beholder,” Engel said.


    "Some of the framers noted that impeachment was unavoidably a political process and worried it could devolve into a partisan tool.

    Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist Paper 65: “In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

    "They also worried that Congress, which they viewed as the primary governing body, might use impeachment threats to bend a president’s policy decisions. But it wasn’t feasible to give the impeachment power to the judiciary branch, since judges are appointed by the president and could end up being called to convict the very president who appointed them. (The chief justice of the United States oversees impeachment trials but does not vote.)"


    "To mitigate this, the impeachment power was divided among the two chambers of Congress, and there was a two-thirds majority required to convict.

    Plus, the standard for impeachment was changed from “maladministration” to the more stringent “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”


    There has been debate for centuries about what exactly “high crimes and misdemeanors” means. Engel said that, given that the concept of the presidency was created with Washington in mind, a good shorthand is, “Imagine something that you can’t imagine George Washington doing.”

    He also said that “high crimes and misdemeanors” would have been no more mysterious to the framers than the expression “balls and strikes” is to us. In fact, in the July 19 and July 20 debate at the Constitutional Convention, Madison and others described several specific instances that would qualify.

    “They say, ‘Well, what if a president works with a foreign power? Well, then of course he should be impeached. What if a president decides to try and make money in office? Well, of course he should be impeached. What if a president lies as part of his campaign? … Well, then of course he should be impeached,’” Engel said, before alleging, “which really is Donald Trump’s biography.”

    bystander says: In bold is the opinion. Did Obama lie or not lie during his campaign? Just asking. Did Obama work with a foreign power ("I'll have more flexibility after the election")? Did Obama make money while in office?

    The Obamas are worth 30 times more than when they entered the White House in 2008 — here's how they spend their millions
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    As far as we can see from the limited leaks to date orchestrated by Schiff and the Dems, their primary witnesses are career, unelected bureaucrats complaining about Trump's execution of his foreign policy. But this is one of the things the 2016 election was about ("drain the swamp').

    And besides the President's power over foreign affairs is plenary or exclusive. When the framers sought to limit that power, they did (for ex, a declaration of war)
    "[t]he President has primary responsibility for the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States," and although Congress has some specific powers that "concern or bear upon foreign affairs[,] .. the presidency is the institution on which the Constitution places the duty to look to the Republic's interests in the international arena."
    Jefferson Powell, The President's Authority over Foreign Affairs: An Executive Branch Perspective, 67 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 527, 535 (1999).

    If you really like this topic, here is the full DOJ paper on the plenary power under the Constitution of the President over foreign affairs. I think this one was written in contemplation of the US entering WWII. https://www.justice.gov/file/20661/download

    And, FWIW, the SCOTUS is still singing the same song even today --
    “[j]udicial inquiry into the national-security realm raises concerns for the separation of powers” by intruding on the President’s constitutional responsibilities in the area of foreign affairs. Ziglar v. Abbasi..."

    And even from Kennedy (of all people) in the same recent case --
    .... substantial deference that is and must be accorded to the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs .... And even if further proceedings are permitted, it would be necessary to determine that any discovery and other preliminary matters would not themselves intrude on the foreign affairs power of the Executive.
    See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page