Politics IMPEACHMENT 2020: THE BIG SNOOZE

[e_blazer]

Kenneth Starr argued impeachment is too divisive.

I think his argument was that impeachment has become too politicized and is now used too often. It's a party vs. party event as opposed to something the Constitution contemplated would only be used to remove presidents who had committed crimes that made them unfit to continue to hold office until the next election. Good thought, IMO, but I think that ship has sailed.

 

[barfo]

I think his argument was that impeachment has become too politicized and is now used too often. It's a party vs. party event as opposed to something the Constitution contemplated would only be used to remove presidents who had committed crimes that made them unfit to continue to hold office until the next election. Good thought, IMO, but I think that ship has sailed.

It sailed specifically because of Ken Starr. What an absurd hypocrite he is.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

It sailed specifically because of Ken Starr. What an absurd hypocrite he is.

barfo

Aren’t they all?

 

[barfo]

Aren’t they all?

All special prosecutors? All lawyers? All Trump's defenders? All humans? All mammals? All life forms in the Federation?

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

All special prosecutors? All lawyers? All Trump's defenders? All humans? All mammals? All life forms in the Federation?

barfo

I was thinking Washington political types, but feel free to fill in the blank as you see fit. Not really looking for an OT debate tonight.

 

[barfo]

Not really looking for an OT debate tonight.

Yes you are.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Can you ever impeach a President who refuses to present any documents or evidence proving his wrongdoing? Even Nixon and Clinton, under penalty of the court, had to present evidence showing they did wrong.

This is untrue in both cases.

Nixon wasn't even impeached.

 

[MARIS61]

"Shifty", Trump's favorite epithet for Adam Schiff, is a classic anti-Semitic slur.

No, it's not.

Tight-fisted, cheap, shrewd, miserly are classics.

Shifty implies dishonesty/trickery, more likely to be applied to slurring Gypsies, used-car saleswomen or POLITICIANS, especially known liars whose name is Schiff.

 

[Lanny]

This is untrue in both cases.

Nixon wasn't even impeached.

Nixon's lack of impeachment has nothing to do with the requirements of an impeachment inquiry. I think it was Goldwater who told Nixon that he was soon to be impeached and that he would be convicted in the Senate unless Nixon resigned from the Presidency.
Nixon's future was set one way or the other. Nixon wisely chose resignation.

 

[jonnyboy]

Adam Schiff’s financial alliances paint a pretty clear picture about why his eyes bug the fuck out when someone says the word “Russia.” The military defense contractors who are his biggest donors seem to have been making the same unfounded claims for years, and cashing in when politicians act on those claims.

 

[ehizzy3]

Russian trolls on rip city two

seen it all

 

[CupWizier]

No, it's not.

Tight-fisted, cheap, shrewd, miserly are classics.

Shifty implies dishonesty/trickery, more likely to be applied to slurring Gypsies, or POLITICIANS, especially known liars.

fify

 

[jonnyboy]

Russian trolls on rip city two

seen it all

Don’t get too wrapped up in conspiracy theories man, your eyes could pop right out of your head.

 

[Shaboid]

I'm gonna be honest here. All this just makes me want to grab a beer. Honestly, I should probably grab a bottle of whiskey.

 

[calvin natt]

You simply can’t make this shit up

 

[yankeesince59]

You simply can’t make this shit up

C'mon man...You know damn well that Graham didn't really say what he said.

 

[TBpup]

Pam Bondi was pretty amazing. Most people couldn't see it though as the networks which covered every word and breath that Schiff uttered, wouldn't show the defense council.....maybe because they knew what was coming. Bondi used the networks own stories and reporting to show the level of "nefarious" corruption that was involved. It is not only the president's duty to inquire about this, it is the law when providing aid to a potentially corrupt situation. She also showed the video of Joe Biden actually doing and bragging about what they are accusing Trump of. Dershowitz (a Hillary voter) named all the Presidents that would have been impeached (a long list) if the same criteria were applied that is being used in this case. Again, the networks wanted little to no part of his statement.

No wonder the networks wouldn't show it.....much of it being their own stories. #Ironic There are things I don't like about what happened or believe they could have been handled in a different way but with how biased much of the media is being (and many people buy they version hook, line and sinker) it is making me dig deeper into what really happened and not what people say they think happened or things that happened that they didn't like....that aren't impeachable offenses. It's eye-opening.

 

[barfo]

Pam Bondi was pretty amazing. Most people couldn't see it though as the networks which covered every word and breath that Schiff uttered, wouldn't show the defense council.....maybe because they knew what was coming. Bondi used the networks own stories and reporting to show the level of "nefarious" corruption that was involved. It is not only the president's duty to inquire about this

No, that's what the Dept. of Justice is for. If US citizens break the law, it's law enforcement, not the President, who takes care of it. If foreign countries are corrupt, there is a government process to certify whether they are eligible for aid or not. Ukraine passed those tests.

Here's another point to consider: If it is the President's duty to inquire about it, why didn't he inquire about it in 2017 or 2018?

, it is the law when providing aid to a potentially corrupt situation. She also showed the video of Joe Biden actually doing and bragging about what they are accusing Trump of.

Biden was carrying out the policy of the US government. Trump was carrying out his own personal agenda.

Dershowitz (a Hillary voter) named all the Presidents that would have been impeached (a long list) if the same criteria were applied that is being used in this case. Again, the networks wanted little to no part of his statement.

Well, impeachment is always a judgement call, so I suppose they could have even impeached someone for lying about sex...

No wonder the networks wouldn't show it....

Weird how I saw it, then. On a network. On a network rumored to be totally hostile to Trump. They showed the whole thing.

.much of it being their own stories. #Ironic There are things I don't like about what happened or believe they could have been handled in a different way but with how biased much of the media is being (and many people buy they version hook, line and sinker) it is making me dig deeper into what really happened and not what people say they think happened or things that happened that they didn't like....that aren't impeachable offenses. It's eye-opening.

Keep digging.

barfo

 

[TBpup]

Triggered Obsesive Commie Pinko,

No problem with a discussion, but "Biden was carrying out the policy of the US government" is completely laughable. He bragged about withholding aid unless the person looking into his son's involvment/corruption was fired. That has nothing to do with US policy. And I said most people couldn't see it because most of the networks that showed all of Schiff did not show all of the opposite numbers. I didn't say none of them did. But perhaps, I shouldn't expect what I actually said to be used.

It's so easy and now cliche' to bag on anything Trump does. Many networks have railed against him only to find out in some cases it was another president's law or even situations they credited to Trump that weren't his. The amount of times they have got stuff wrong and in many cases, so easily researched if they did 5 seconds worth of research, is astounding.

Again, Trump wasn't my choice at all but the more that I dig into things that aren't practically mob/rant in nature, the more there is to question what has really been going on. Russia collusion? 2 years and then nothing. Any mea culpas? No where to be found. Then it was Quid Pro Quo.....nothing there so changed to Bribery. Nothing there so changed to the current Abuse of Power. The contstant, incessant, no matter what and regardless of rules approach is dangerous and sets a horrible president.

And Impeachment is supposed to be after a crime has been committed and proved, not a never ending search for something that might have gone wrong. Under that approach, every President in history could be impeach for something.

 

[TBpup]

...and even Jerry Nadler thinks impeachment shouldn't be a partisan event like this completely is.

 

[MARIS61]

Dem Impeachment managers committed perjury.

Deroy Murdock: Trump Senate trial -- Democrat impeachment managers voted AGAINST military aid to Ukraine

By Deroy Murdock | Fox News
The very Democrats railing against President Trump for withholding Ukraine aid voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, which included $300 million for Ukraine assistance; reaction from Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock.

Democrat House impeachment managers have focused not just on what they call corruption by President Donald J. Trump. They claim further that his 55-day hold on aid to Ukraine jeopardized U.S. national security.

• “If the president cared about national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable strategic ally in the attempt to secure personal political favor for himself,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “We will show that he betrayed vital national interests, specifically our national security, by withholding diplomatic support and military aid from Ukraine.”
• President Trump’s conduct “was inconsistent with and diverged from American national security and American values,” according to Representative Zoe Lofgren of California. “Those within the U.S. government responsible for America’s security and for shaping and implementing U.S. foreign policy were caught off guard by the president’s decision. Support for the aid and against the hold was unanimous, forceful, and unwavering.”
• “Ukraine remains at war with Russia,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York wept. “It desperately needs our support.”

So, given how pivotal these Democrats say Ukraine is to America’s national security — a virtual lynchpin of this republic’s survival — surely these members of Congress did everything within their power to speed military aid to Ukraine.

Not so fast, Jerrold, Zoe, and Hakeem!

In fact, Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries are working tirelessly to dislodge President Trump for delaying aid to Ukraine when they themselves voted to stop such relief, dead in its tracks.

On July 26, 2018, all three voted against the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which included $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Despite Lofgren’s assertions to the contrary, such funds turned out not to be “unanimous, forceful, and unwavering,” with Lofgren herself among those undermining the very same unanimity that she ballyhoos.

In its time of need, these three impeachment managers told Ukraine to go to Hell. The vote was a lopsided 359-54, with Nadler, Lofgren, and Jeffries among the minority who just said no to this bill and its aid to Ukraine.

Even worse, Nadler opposed $300 million in aid to Ukraine when he voted against the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Astonishingly, Nadler’s vote was on December 11, 2019, two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing and exactly one week before he was the House floor manager for the December 17 debate and December 18 votes on articles of impeachment.

While 40 other Democrats rejected the NDAA, which contained the aid to Ukraine, 188 Democrats endorsed this bill. If Ukraine is a necessary condition for America’s national security — so much so that President Trump’s hold on this aid triggered Nadler to co-direct the effort to pry him from office — why didn’t Nadler join 188 of his Democrat colleagues and vote Yea? The bill passed overwhelmingly, 377-48. Yet Nadler found himself on the losing side of this measure, huddled among those who turned their thumbs down on Ukraine.

All told, Nadler resisted $550 million in sorely needed military assistance to Kiev. This races past hypocrisy. Rather, it’s shocking, outrageous, and disgusting.

Finally, while these three impeachment managers spurned this relief, President Trump on September 11 released to Ukraine the $391 million at issue, after a 55-day interval to confirm that newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky would keep his anti-corruption promises, rather than re-direct these U.S. taxpayer funds, say, to a numbered account in the Grand Caymans. The backing that President Trump transmitted, 19 days before the September 30 legal deadline, included Javelin missiles — perfect for the high-speed recycling of Russian tanks into white-hot scrap metal.

In contrast, Democrat deity Obama sent Ukraine pillows, blankets, and hot cocoa.

And President Trump is the bad guy here?

 

[MARIS61]

You simply can’t make this shit up

Or this:

 

[barfo]

Triggered Obsesive Commie Pinko,

No problem with a discussion, but "Biden was carrying out the policy of the US government" is completely laughable. He bragged about withholding aid unless the person looking into his son's involvment/corruption was fired.

So you say, but it's also said that the investigation into Burisma was about events that happened before Hunter Biden got involved with them, and that the investigation was dormant at the time the prosecutor was fired.

There's also the little problem that the US government goal was to get a prosecutor installed that would more aggressively go after corruption.

That has nothing to do with US policy. And I said most people couldn't see it because most of the networks that showed all of Schiff did not show all of the opposite numbers. I didn't say none of them did. But perhaps, I shouldn't expect what I actually said to be used.

Ok. You are right, if people were too lazy to change the channel to one showing the impeachment trial, they won't have seen the impeachment trial.

It's so easy and now cliche' to bag on anything Trump does. Many networks have railed against him only to find out in some cases it was another president's law or even situations they credited to Trump that weren't his. The amount of times they have got stuff wrong and in many cases, so easily researched if they did 5 seconds worth of research, is astounding.

While it is certainly true that networks get things wrong sometimes, it's also the case that Trump does a lot of shit that isn't kosher.

Again, Trump wasn't my choice at all but the more that I dig into things that aren't practically mob/rant in nature, the more there is to question what has really been going on. Russia collusion? 2 years and then nothing.

Nothing? The president's campaign manager is in jail. The president's deputy campaign manager got jail time. The president's national security advisor is about to be sentenced to jail. Etc. etc.

Any mea culpas? No where to be found. Then it was Quid Pro Quo.....nothing there so changed to Bribery. Nothing there so changed to the current Abuse of Power.

The quid pro quo has been proven. You can read about it in John Bolton's book next month, if you missed the presentation in the trial. The quid pro quo is the bribery, so that's proven also. Abuse of Power is just the catch-all title of the impeachment article.

The contstant, incessant, no matter what and regardless of rules approach is dangerous and sets a horrible president.

And Impeachment is supposed to be after a crime has been committed and proved,

No, that's not correct. Impeachment is akin to indictment; the trial in the Senate is where you prove the crime.

not a never ending search for something that might have gone wrong. Under that approach, every President in history could be impeach for something.

It's clear what went wrong, and that crimes were committed.

I note that your defense of Trump here is "Biden did bad things", "the process is unfair", "the media is unfair", "democrats hate Trump", "everybody does it".

Nothing at all about Trump being innocent of the charges.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

I'm gonna be honest here. All this just makes me want to grab a beer. Honestly, I should probably grab a bottle of whiskey.

Rich people go for wine, woman and song. Poor men go for beer, the old lady and TV.

 

[crandc]

Pam Bondi withdrew Florida from the class action suit against the fraudulent Trump University after he made an illegal campaign contribution to her from his fraudulent charity.

 

[TBpup]

@barfo

"While it is certainly true that networks get things wrong sometimes, it's also the case that Trump does a lot of shit that isn't kosher."

Which I've mentioned as well. I don't think anyone is coming close to suggesting Trump is a saint. Part of why I've started to dig deeper into this is the reaction to things that he has done....that have been done by the previous administrations. It's not to excuse it but instead to wonder why such a different reaction to what he has done in many cases when it was almost the identical action.

"Nothing? The president's campaign manager is in jail. The president's deputy campaign manager got jail time. The president's national security advisor is about to be sentenced to jail. Etc. etc."

Correct....nothing to do with collusion which is what the investigation was about. They are in jail for all sorts of things, none of which has to do with collusion. The closest any of them come to that is one who in jail for lying under oath but that may now be in legal proceedings because of how that was handled which is more of a proecess crime and how it was set up. Anyone can be quilty of that if questioned long enough.

"The quid pro quo has been proven. You can read about it in John Bolton's book next month, if you missed the presentation in the trial. The quid pro quo is the bribery, so that's proven also. Abuse of Power is just the catch-all title of the impeachment article."

Proven because we can read about it next month in a book? Lol....and besides, read what Bolton actually said. Not that Trumd 'did' but that he 'wanted to'. Big difference and certainly not impeachable. And someone who was fired wrote a book that is now unfavorable to the person who fired him? Conflict of interest much? Especially when both President's involved in the discussion said it didn't happen.

"No, that's not correct. Impeachment is akin to indictment; the trial in the Senate is where you prove the crime."

We'll agree to disagree. Senate is where you are convicted or exonerated. Impeachment is supposed to happen after a crime has been committed, not a search for one as this has been.

'I note that your defense of Trump here is "Biden did bad things", "the process is unfair", "the media is unfair", "democrats hate Trump", "everybody does it"."

Not my defense at all but rather a list of what actually happened. Trump is accused (with nothing close to the evidence that Biden provided out of his own bragadocious mouth) of the very thing Biden said he did on camera. That is not a defense but as I've asked before, why such a difference in response? Biden admits to doing it. The president of Ukraine says Trump didn't do it. Yet look at the polar opposite reactions? No one has yet to provide any legitimate answer to that question.

 

[barfo]

@barfo

It's not to excuse it but instead to wonder why such a different reaction to what he has done in many cases when it was almost the identical action.

The 'Johnny did it too' defense. If it's not to excuse it, then why try to make that case?

Correct....nothing to do with collusion which is what the investigation was about. They are in jail for all sorts of things, none of which has to do with collusion.

You know they found lots of 'collusion', just not a provable criminal conspiracy. But still, this is the worst defense of all: "he got off last time he was in court, so he must be innocent here as well"

The closest any of them come to that is one who in jail for lying under oath but that may now be in legal proceedings because of how that was handled which is more of a proecess crime and how it was set up. Anyone can be quilty of that if questioned long enough.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are talking about Flynn, it's bullshit to call that a 'process crime'. 'Treason' is a lot closer to the truth than 'process crime'.

Proven because we can read about it next month in a book?

You know that isn't what I said.

Lol....and besides, read what Bolton actually said. Not that Trumd 'did' but that he 'wanted to'.

Except that we already know he 'did' it. So if he 'wanted to' that proves intent.

Big difference and certainly not impeachable. And someone who was fired wrote a book that is now unfavorable to the person who fired him? Conflict of interest much? Especially when both President's involved in the discussion said it didn't happen.

So put him under oath and have him testify. Why the coverup?

We'll agree to disagree. Senate is where you are convicted or exonerated. Impeachment is supposed to happen after a crime has been committed, not a search for one as this has been.

Not clear what you are talking about. The crimes are alleged in the impeachment articles. The crimes happened before the impeachment.

Not my defense at all but rather a list of what actually happened. Trump is accused (with nothing close to the evidence that Biden provided out of his own bragadocious mouth) of the very thing Biden said he did on camera. That is not a defense but as I've asked before, why such a difference in response? Biden admits to doing it. The president of Ukraine says Trump didn't do it. Yet look at the polar opposite reactions? No one has yet to provide any legitimate answer to that question.

The answer is that Trump's actions were designed to help Trump, not the USA. That's the impeachable offense, and that's the difference between him and Biden.
And the coverup continues. If Trump is so innocent, why the coverup? Are you defending him on the 2nd article as well, or just the first?

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Let both sides call 5 witness's each of, their choosing then have a vote.
The house should have let Repub's call witness and the Dems & Repubs should be able to now, as well.
I don't care if it's not the senates job or not I want to see how many slippery corrupt politicians we have and expose them.
I doubt they remove Trump as I believe they 2/3, but who knows what would be uncovered?

 

[Lanny]

Let both sides call 5 witness's each of, their choosing then have a vote.
The house should have let Repub's call witness and the Dems & Repubs should be able to now, as well.
I don't care if it's not the senates job or not I want to see how many slippery corrupt politicians we have and expose them.
I doubt they remove Trump as I believe they 2/3, but who knows what would be uncovered?

In no trial are witnesses allowed that have no bearing on the charges. The Bidens don't have a single thing to do with Trump's attempt at trading military aid already approved by Congress for a statement to the press from Zelenski that Ukraine was proceeding with an investigation of the Bidents. In fact, the chief prosecutor for the country already declared along with their president that the Bidens were innocent of any charges.
A Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens wasn't even a prerequisite for the release of the military aid, only an announcement of a phony investigation. By the way, Zelenski refused on the grounds that it was just a political matter for the U.S.

 

[Hoopguru]

In no trial are witnesses allowed that have no bearing on the charges. The Bidens don't have a single thing to do with Trump's attempt at trading military aid already approved by Congress for a statement to the press from Zelenski that Ukraine was proceeding with an investigation of the Bidents. In fact, the chief prosecutor for the country already declared along with their president that the Bidens were innocent of any charges.
A Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens wasn't even a prerequisite for the release of the military aid, only an announcement of a phony investigation. By the way, Zelenski refused on the grounds that it was just a political matter for the U.S.

Let the Justice determine who has bearing in the case as both sides are as determine to get their own way. Someone is going to have to arbitrate who is or isn’t relative. If they can’t agree on a fair solution than have a vote now and get this political charade over.