• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Democrats Dumb Enough to Actually Vote For Impeachment

Trump is obstructing and preventing people with better knowledge and papers from being released.

Then maybe we should go by Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, Shall we:

Here was there statement in 2014:

"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Whoops, I guess you didn't remember that, did you. lol
 
This may come as a surprise but there were no secret basement meetings that locked Republicans out of the process.

Nope, they made it very clear when they voted on the House rules for Impeachment right before they held the hearings. Did you think I was just making it all up?
 
Trump used the powers of his office to extort a foreign power to announce an investigation into his political rival in order to cheat in the 2020 election.

You can't not vote to impeach over that, just like you can't not arrest a person for murder even if you know in advance that the jury is just going to acquit him through jury nullification, because to not do so is a perversion of justice.
 
Criminals get to provide their own witnesses at trial, yes. This isn't a trial yet.

What criminals don't get to do is block the police from interviewing direct witnesses. Agree?

Why don't we just take a page from Obama's Office of Legal counsel in 2014, shall we.

"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Whoops, I guess you didn't remember that, did you. lol
 
Then maybe we should go by Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, Shall we:

Here was there statement in 2014:

"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Whoops, I guess you didn't remember that, did you. lol

I assume you agreed with that 100% at the time.
 
Not really but I do love the hypocrisy on the Democrats position now

I never agreed with that position, because I believe in checks and balances.

Your hypocrisy, however, you have openly admitted to here.
 
Then maybe we should go by Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, Shall we:

Here was there statement in 2014:

"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Whoops, I guess you didn't remember that, did you. lol

So the obstruction defense stands, lol

But not everything asked for is some "immediate adviser", particularly papers from the State department. But that's the point of the obstruction defense, isn't it. The nice little Catch 22 y'all constructed to hide behind.
 
So the obstruction defense stands, lol

But not everything asked for is some "immediate adviser", particularly papers from the State department. But that's the point of the obstruction defense, isn't it. The nice little Catch 22 y'all constructed to hide behind.

Your own party confirmed the standard for a president or his advisors testifying in congress and you still call it obstruction? How convenient for you.
Must be nice to make the rules up as you go.
 
I never agreed with that position, because I believe in checks and balances.

Your hypocrisy, however, you have openly admitted to here.

If you and I are communication in the same reality, I do believe its Democrats screaming obstruction because Trump won't participate in the hearings but defended that very same right just a few years ago and you are claiming I am being hypocritical? OooooKkkkAaaaaYYyyy
 
Your own party confirmed the standard for a president or his advisors testifying in congress and you still call it obstruction? How convenient for you.
Must be nice to make the rules up as you go.

What's "my party"?

lol

I'm not making up rules, just pointing out your Catch 22. Sorry if you don't like your obstruction defense being called out like that.
 
What's "my party"?

lol

I'm not making up rules, just pointing out your Catch 22. Sorry if you don't like your obstruction defense being called out like that.

I wouldn't affirm I'm a Democrat either. If you could provide what your definition of a Catch 22 is I might be better able to understand your position. As it has no meaning in this conversation from the dictionary example.
 
You mean the House rules that were voted on by Democrats in the House on how this Impeachment would be run. Yes, thats exactly what they did



Sorry, you don't get to make demands while you are denying witnesses to testify, refusing to allow the accused representation, and refusing to allow cross examination by the accused representation.

But we could go by Obama's Office of Legal Counsel in 2014 who stated:

"The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

Whoops, I guess you didn't remember that, did you. lol

I don't have to remember anything other than how the Clinton Impeachment was handled and remember that the House had to play the role of Independent Counsel in this process because we no longer have one. Subpoenas to witnesses that were in dispute still went to committee vote then just as it is today.

The big dif is that without an Independent Counsel taking depositions behind closed doors, Schiff's Committee had to take depositions behind closed doors. But Minority Lawyers and Minority Committee members were still able to attend and ask questions, just not Trump's attorneys. TOUGH. Depositions behind closed doors is what put Sondland on the hot seat and put Volker on the hot seat and we never would have had Sondland forced to come back and clean up his BS if those depositions had been taken in public hearing.

Either you want an outcome based on an actual investigation or you want Trump to slither out of this just because you want Trump to slither out of this.
 
I wouldn't affirm I'm a Democrat either. If you could provide what your definition of a Catch 22 is I might be better able to understand your position. As it has no meaning in this conversation from the dictionary example.

lol

I'm not a Democrat, but I understand that some are cemented into the false dichotomy of Republocrat Oligarchy.

The Catch 22 is already presented to you, and obvious to anyone willing to think of it. Your claim is that no one who has testified has "first hand knowledge", despite the consistency in testimony from multiple sources. But those with that "first hand knowledge" have been prevented from testifying and the subpoenaed papers from the State Department have been refused to be handed over. The obstruction defense relies on this Catch 22.

Rather obvious now, isn't it.
 
Either you want an outcome based on an actual investigation or you want Trump to slither out of this just because you want Trump to slither out of this.

I think we already know the answer to that.
 
Here's what we know thus far.

1. Nowhere in any document or call script was there an offer to withhold money from Ukraine if they didn't do (X)

2. No money was ever withheld waiting for an investigation

3. Still to date no investigation has been announced

4. EVERY witness who testified for Democrats stated under Republican questioning that they have no knowledge of any bribery or quid pro quo

5. EVERY witness who testified for Democrats stated they were only testifying to their presumptions of what might have happened

6. Only Democrats are pushing for Impeachment without a single vote from any Republican which means this is a partisan scam.

So the question is, if they hold a vote, and only Democrats vote for it, they don't even realize whats going to happen in the Senate?

They have no clue that every witness Schiff has refused to allow to testify will take the stand? They don't think the Whistle Blower will be called (even in a closed setting) to expose the relationship with Schiff and Biden?

They can't be so stupid. Can they? After what they have put this country through on an exclusively partisan quest, putting this in the hands of a Republican Senate will be a blood fest.

If they don't have a single Republican now, do they actually think they will get enough in the Senate to unseat a president? Of course they don't.

Thats the idiocy of this entire ordeal.

Perhaps Republican should look at some of their partisan legislation before calling others "dumb".
 
For those who cannot click on that link, Read the this:

Gordon Sondland Confirms Quid Pro Quo in Opening Statement

“Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. “The answer is yes.”

Sondland said he communicated to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that he “told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to ‘run a fully transparent investigation’ and ‘turn over every stone’ were necessary in his call with President Trump.”

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said.

Sondland also said that he believed there was also a quid pro quo attached to hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid that was supposed to go to Ukraine. Upon learning of the hold on military aid to the country, Sondland said, “I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer.”

He went on: “In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.” Burisma is a reference to the Ukrainian energy firm that hired Hunter Biden to serve on its board.
 
Perhaps Republican should look at some of their partisan legislation before calling others "dumb".

This is an impeachment, not legislation. Just an FYI, most legislation is partisan.
 
Gordon Sondland said there was Quid Pro Quo:

He did? In what universe were you watching those hearings? What he said was he PRESUMED there was a quid pro quo.

Maybe a little refresher would help you recall? What a joke.

 
lol

I'm not a Democrat, but I understand that some are cemented into the false dichotomy of Republocrat Oligarchy.

The Catch 22 is already presented to you, and obvious to anyone willing to think of it. Your claim is that no one who has testified has "first hand knowledge", despite the consistency in testimony from multiple sources.

I hate to be the one who breaks this to you but 10,000 people all testifying to what they presumed does not = evidence. Its just 10,000 people all saying what they thought might have happened.

But those with that "first hand knowledge" have been prevented from testifying and the subpoenaed papers from the State Department have been refused to be handed over. The obstruction defense relies on this Catch 22.

No obstruction defense is needed. Just because you make some claim doesn't make it real. Trump and his cabinet are not required to testify in any congressional hearing, so how can you claim obstruction for not participating. Here is another clue. How many times do you have to get it wrong before you find out it was wrong.

We started out with a quid pro quo, then it was bribery, then it was trying to effect the outcome of an election and now its obstruction. Please
 
Here's what we know thus far.

1. Nowhere in any document or call script was there an offer to withhold money from Ukraine if they didn't do (X)

2. No money was ever withheld waiting for an investigation

3. Still to date no investigation has been announced

4. EVERY witness who testified for Democrats stated under Republican questioning that they have no knowledge of any bribery or quid pro quo

5. EVERY witness who testified for Democrats stated they were only testifying to their presumptions of what might have happened

6. Only Democrats are pushing for Impeachment without a single vote from any Republican which means this is a partisan scam.

So the question is, if they hold a vote, and only Democrats vote for it, they don't even realize whats going to happen in the Senate?

They have no clue that every witness Schiff has refused to allow to testify will take the stand? They don't think the Whistle Blower will be called (even in a closed setting) to expose the relationship with Schiff and Biden?

They can't be so stupid. Can they? After what they have put this country through on an exclusively partisan quest, putting this in the hands of a Republican Senate will be a blood fest.

If they don't have a single Republican now, do they actually think they will get enough in the Senate to unseat a president? Of course they don't.

Thats the idiocy of this entire ordeal.

Dems don't care. They want and need to dirty up Trump for 2020. Just look at their field of candidates.
 
I didn't think Pelosi would do it....gave her too much credit....sure looks like she will.

The more dems expose themselves the higher Trumps poll numbers rise:lol:
 
Dems don't care. They want and need to dirty up Trump for 2020. Just look at their field of candidates.


There is very little political upside for dems in this which also means there is lots of political downside. If they could drag this out through at least mid-2020, there would be more upside for dems. Then again, the chance that Fat Donald will commit more impeachable acts through 2020 is great as Fat Donald can not help himself. He can't stop himself from engaging in corrupt activity on a grand scale. Witness Rudy in Europe again, this time sifting through real trash in the service of Fat Donald.

Dems are doing it because it is the right thing to do for the country. Its literally the only reason they have to do it. Speaks volumes to the dif between a Dem and the remnants of the GOP. Don't expect a Repug to lift a finger for the country against the tiniest bit of downside risk politically.
 
He did? In what universe were you watching those hearings? What he said was he PRESUMED there was a quid pro quo.

Nothing you posted contradicted what I wrote.

You still have no problem with Trump breaking the law, by engaging in solicitation.
 
Back
Top Bottom