Are Democrats Dumb Enough to Actually Vote For Impeachment

[Condor060]

No offense, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to say or the arguments presented. You cannot label things "dumb", when you cannot comprehend the argument made.

Nobody is making the argument that Trump said "Give me information on Crowdstrike/Biden or else, you don't get your money". That's not what happened or the evidence. The evidence shows an "indirect quid pro quo". While money is being frozen, Trump officials were asking the Ukrainian government for information on Bidens/Crowdstrike. The Ukrainian government is not stupid, they knew that money was being withheld from them, and knew if they do not comply with the President's wishes, that money would still be frozen. That is the point Sondland and others have been making.

As for my second point, you once again, dodged it. Asking for information on the political opponent from a foreign power is illegal. That's solicitation.

First off, there is no such thing as an indirect quid pro quo. Now we are making up terms to fit a situation so we can make a crime out of it? Every time we give money to a foreign power there is a quid pro quo. EVERY TIME. We don't just give away money without it having a benefit to the US. For years we gave money to North Korea in return for them not building Nuclear weapons. We gave money to Ukraine with the caveat it would be used to fight Russia. We told Mexico if they didn't help stop the caravans we would stop giving them money. We told NATO if they didn't start paying their fair share we would pull out and stop giving money. Biden made it clear if Ukraine didn't fire their prosecutor he wasn't going to give them US tax dollars.

These are all quid pro quo's so can we dispense with the idea that a quid pro quo with a foreign national all of a sudden became a crime.

Biden is not immune from an investigation just because he is running for president. Neither was Trump. When the Mueller report determined that neither Trump or anyone in his campaign conspired with Russia to effect the outcome of the election it becomes clear the investigation and claims against him during his campaign to include the Steele Dossier was all a fake to actually try and effect the outcome of an election but all we have is crickets on that matter.

On the other hand we have plenty of evidence of a pay to play scheme with Hunter Biden. Its not Trumps fault they did this and as the head of the Executive branch it is his duty to bring corruption to light. But Democrats want to twist the story into election fraud because Biden is running for president. We are told to forget the facts of what happened and convert this to an election scandal. Not going to happen.

If Biden never threatened Ukraine and Hunter never received billions from China and Ukraine this would be a different story but the fact that Hunter was being paid (just like Pelosi's son) from a Ukraine energy company with no benefit to this company other than his dad being VP is a clear indication this is a problem.

On top of which if you try and Impeach ANY president with not one single opposing party vote, no matter what the circumstances, its a scam. If you can't convince anyone in the opposing party of a crime you can't just blow it off as every single republican congressman or Senator is in a cult. Trying to impeach a president with one party vote only, not to mention even people in that party are voting no, is a partisan attack on the office. Not an impeachment.

This is desperation at its best. If you think 63 million people and every republican are all in some cult to protect Trump at all cost then you are not in touch with reality. That is a ridiculous idea. Then when you bring to the table that every single witness who testified stated under republican questioning that they were all just testifying to what they presumed, this becomes a coup d'etat. Not an impeachment process.

 

[Condor060]

And everything he stated is 100% correct. But it takes both parties in unison to agree that a president needs to be removed for crimes or for the good of the country. When you can't convince a single republican Congressman or Senator and this becomes exclusively a single party accusation, you don't have an impeachment, you have a coup d'etat.

 

[Ikari]

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.

10000 people all consistently testifying against another for a commission of crime is a preponderance of evidence, actually. And certainly it's cause for strong investigations and the necessity to interview and call people who may have more information.

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

If no obstruction defense is needed, then perhaps y'all should stop using it. Nixon was brought up on impeachment charges for having ignored Congressional subpoenas, so we have precedent. it's not just a few cabinet members that Trump won't let testify, it's aids and everyone possibly connected and they refuse to release papers subpoenaed by Congress as well. Executive privilege only goes so far, and obstruction has been and is an impeachable offense. As demonstrated previously with Nixon.

Hate to break it to you.

 

[Ikari]

And your narrative above is obviously just as partisan.

No, all that I have stated is true. I'm sorry that Party-Before-Republic GOP-Partisans want to play their obstruction game to try to deflect away from Trump's misdeeds. It's sad that y'all will put Party Power above the proper constraints of Governmental Power.

 

[danielpalos]

The Senate will have to get serious in public and the Chief Justice will preside, not your guy.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Then dispute one or is that just too far out of your league.

I dispute all your claims. And by your standards done and done; because you never back up anything you post with documentation or citations.

in regard of tRumps holding up military aid to Ukraine

He can do that. He's the president, remember. You don't have a single witness or document that shows he did it to make Zelenski investigate Biden. Sorry.

Well there is tRumps transcript.

(Zelensky) I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.

(tRump) I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There-are a lot of things that went on, the:whole situation .. I think you're _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you say yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they. say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Which, admittedly, can be interpreted in many ways. But coupled with the testimony presented in the closed AND open House Intelligence Committee hearings a clear picture of intent to benefit personally and politically becomes apparent. And NO, he can not "do that" for personal gain.

ANd it was never a quid pro quo

It doesn't have to be.

Still to date no investigation has been announced

ME: Because tRumps scam came to a screeching halt when outed by the whistleblower

Prove it

First of all tRump didn't want an investigation into the Biden's, he wanted a political show. JUST the announcement of an investigation would have suited tRumps purpose nicely, in fact an investigation would have proven there was nothing there, there with regard to Biden corruption and tRump sure as hell didn't want that.

Impeachment hearings: Sondland’s most quietly damning testimony - Vox

But, as Sara Palin would say, also too tRump knew of the Whisltblower complaint in early September shortly after his July 25th (transcript) call to Zelensky. At which time he immediately released the Ukrainian aid and all efforts to smear the Biden's halted.

Trump Knew of Whistle-Blower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine - The New York Times

And every single one of them under republican question stated for the record they have no knowledge of any bribery or any quid pro quo and no evidence of any impeachable crimes. You just love to leave out that part, don't you. How fake can you be.

Well when it comes to being FAKE I can't compete with you. ALL the witness's testified to "Knowledge" and a belief that tRump tried to extort Zelensky. And before you go off the handle U.S. Federal law does allow "hearsay" evidence when it corroborates factual testimony … like tRumps transcript.

Article VIII - Hearsay | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

AND circumstantial evidence.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf


Too long this is part 1 part 2 to follow.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Part 2

They all corroborated that every one of them were testifying to their presumptions. Still a fake

No, no it's not. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Prove me wrong or go home

First of all this is a public board, and even though, control freek that you are, you don't get to tell me where to go. I love to tell you where to go but … I can't without getting my hands slapped.
Secondly, I just proved you WRONG.
Thirdly, I am home. :doh

They will have to be relevant to the crimes accused. None of the Democrats witnesses will even be able to testify. You don't get to testify to what you think. Thats only in the Liberal delusional mind.

I think they will be called, if needed, and Roberts will be only too happy to allow it.

Schiff denied knowing who the whistle blower was until we all found out the WB was talking with his staff prior to filing. Now we are going to find out more

I doubt the Republicans will want to call Schiff, though the Democrats might. AND, also too; the only testimony in evidence is that Schiff doesn't know the whistleblower.

He won't allow the fantisy world testimony of the witnesses Democrats brought to the hearings

The Senate trial and how Roberts rules (of order )will be interesting.

You think their constitutional duty is to Impeach a president when they don't have a single Republican on their side. Thats called a partisan scam

By you, but at least Half of AmeriCANs see it as their duty.

Oh, they made a circus out of the witnesses who claimed they knew everything until we found out they really didn't know anything. Testifying to what they think? What a joke

I think I've shown that statement is false. Have a nice day!

 

[Condor060]

10000 people all consistently testifying against another for a commission of crime is a preponderance of evidence, actually. And certainly it's cause for strong investigations and the necessity to interview and call people who may have more information.

If no obstruction defense is needed, then perhaps y'all should stop using it. Nixon was brought up on impeachment charges for having ignored Congressional subpoenas, so we have precedent. it's not just a few cabinet members that Trump won't let testify, it's aids and everyone possibly connected and they refuse to release papers subpoenaed by Congress as well. Executive privilege only goes so far, and obstruction has been and is an impeachable offense. As demonstrated previously with Nixon.

Hate to break it to you.

So lets take for granted everything you think is true. Now what? You are going to move forward with an Impeachment with no votes from the opposing party? If you can't even convince one Republican of your presumed evidence are you going to claim that every Republican in the Senate or Congressman are all cultist? You are going to site that all these opposing party members are just out of touch with reality?

Nobody will buy that story. If you move for an impeachment exclusively with one party only, it looks exactly what it is. A Coup d'etat. Without both parties supporting an Impeachment or at least a good number of each party this becomes nothing but a political hack job.

Not one Republican has seen any evidence of any impeachable crime. Why is that?

Every witness has testified to having no knowledge of any bribery or a quid pro quo. Why is that?

Hosting an exclusive partisan impeachment (the first in our history) is like a prosecutor claiming a defendant committed a crime just because they say so. It isn't viewed as heroism or upholding the Constitution. Its flat out abuse of power. Trying to impeach under these circumstances is just plain stupid. You can kiss any voter who might have considered a Democrat goodbye as you are only going to get the support of the far left never Trumper network while alienating the entire country.

 

[less right]

Oh, so its our way in how we will do this but if Trump disagrees to play in this one sided scam he is obstructing. The only thing Trump is obstructing is Democrats fraudulent race to impeachment.

The constitution says the House sets the rules so if Trump doesn't like it, change the constitution, don't refuse to abide by it.

 

[TomFitz]

And everything he stated is 100% correct. But it takes both parties in unison to agree that a president needs to be removed for crimes or for the good of the country. When you can't convince a single republican Congressman or Senator and this becomes exclusively a single party accusation, you don't have an impeachment, you have a coup d'etat.

The kind of “coup d’etat” that makes Mike Pence President.

Funny, how every time I point that out to a Trumpster, they run away.

 

[Condor060]

You have offered nothing but Liberal talking points. Every adult in the country watched EVERY witness the Democrats called state under Republican questioning that they had NO evidence of any bribery, quid pro quo, or any other impeachable crime.

The fact that you dispute that tells me everything I need to know. You have no interest in the truth, you just want Trump at all cost. Even the fact that not one single Republican will vote for impeachment doesn't even register in your head why this is a partisan hack job at best. But the voters know.

But you keep doing what we need you to do. Deny the recorded video of testimony so everyone knows what you are posting is just more lies from a loony left. If you can't even admit to whats already of record then nothing you have to add has any credibility.

Since you love Sondland so much I guess in your mind this didn't happen either.

 

[Irwin Corey]

And everything he stated is 100% correct. But it takes both parties in unison to agree that a president needs to be removed for crimes or for the good of the country. When you can't convince a single republican Congressman or Senator and this becomes exclusively a single party accusation, you don't have an impeachment, you have a coup d'etat.

But there are Republican Senators willing to vote for conviction.

Dem senator says he knows 'handful' of GOP colleagues considering vote to remove Trump | TheHill

 

[Condor060]

But there are Republican Senators willing to vote for conviction.

Dem senator says he knows 'handful' of GOP colleagues considering vote to remove Trump | TheHill

Yeah, we heard the very same thing about House republicans and we all saw how that turned out. Fake News.

 

[Condor060]

The kind of “coup d’etat” that makes Mike Pence President.

Funny, how every time I point that out to a Trumpster, they run away.

More fake comments. That never happened. Now you are just making up crap because you have no actual answer to my post. I knew it would catch you flat footed.

When did Democrats ever consider having Pence as President was worse than removing Trump? So can you back up this claim are are you going to run away now?

 

[Condor060]

The constitution says the House sets the rules so if Trump doesn't like it, change the constitution, don't refuse to abide by it.

Trump or his cabinet isn't required to testify or provide any documents to any congressional hearings. How is this obstruction again?

 

[Irwin Corey]

You have offered nothing but Liberal talking points. Every adult in the country watched EVERY witness the Democrats called state under Republican questioning that they had NO evidence of any bribery, quid pro quo, or any other impeachable crime.

EVERY Adult? :2rofll: You really need to avoid absolutes they make you look stupid. But, also too, I cite my posts so, NO, they are not nothing but liberal talking points. Unlike your, nothing but Right Wing Nut Job Propaganda that you never back up with a citation … and CAN'T.

The fact that I dispute your nonsense is I'm tired of hearing it.

Well! There you go again, I never said "I Love" Sondland.

 

[manofknowledge]

Clearly Trump knows he's in trouble. They presented no exculpatory evidence. If it existed the whole process would end with a fizzle, but there is no such evidence being presented. Let's hear testimony from Mulvaney, Giuliani and Rick Perry. They could end the whole issue.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Yeah, we heard the very same thing about House republicans and we all saw how that turned out. Fake News.

But I cited it. Can you cite your claim? I'll bet not. More conie fake facts.

 

[less right]

Trump or his cabinet isn't required to testify or provide any documents to any congressional hearings. How is this obstruction again?

That's just wrong.

The executive branch doesn't get to decide not to honor subpoenas without opening themselves to legal consequences.

 

[Condor060]

That's just wrong.

The executive branch doesn't get to decide not to honor subpoenas without opening themselves to legal consequences.

Then maybe you should read Obama's Office of Legal Counsel declaration:

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

 

[Condor060]

But I cited it.

You sure did just like you sited how House Republicans were split on Impeachment. It was fake then and its fake now.

 

[Irwin Corey]

You sure did just like you sited how House Republicans were split on Impeachment. It was fake then and its fake now.

"All I know is what I read in the papers." At least I try to base my posts in reality, instead of making **** up like you do … all the damn time, every day.

But post a link, I'll doubt you can, so I can see where I went wrong. And, also too, I never claimed to always be right, like you do, and I've never dared anyone to prove me wrong … like you do.

 

[Condor060]

"All I know is what I read in the papers." At least I try to base my posts in reality, instead of making **** up like you do … all the damn time, every day.

Yeah, its all you know alright. You sit there and parrot fake news like its from God, get caught, blame it on its because you read it in a paper, then do it all over again without question.

Then you claim I am making s**t up? Hilarious

 

[less right]

Then maybe you should read Obama's Office of Legal Counsel declaration:

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

No. But then I don't accept a statement from any administration as definitive.

Do you agree with Obama?

 

[Condor060]

No. But then I don't accept a statement from any administration as definitive.

Do you agree with Obama?

Me agreeing isn't the point. The point is how hypocritical Democrats are. They tend to make decisions on what best suits them at the time. Funny how that works.

But you can believe every Republican in the Senate knows about it and most voters do.