• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Both sides seem to agree

Show me where a sex trafficking ring gets a seat on the investigation.

Then we can talk.

Show me where a Russian Well digger gets a seat on the investigation.

See, I can do that too. Doesn't mean anything but hey, if its works you then rock on.
 
Show me where a Russian Well digger gets a seat on the investigation.

See, I can do that too. Doesn't mean anything but hey, if its works you then rock on.

I don't see.

I don't expose myself to conservative messaging so you're gonna have to translate.

You are literally demanding that all suspects get to participate in all aspects of the investigation of their activities. Cross examine every informant. Publicly release their names and addresses.

You do know that it is these completely illogical takes on all of this, that come word for word from propaganda outlets, that is turning independents off on the trump administration, right?

But please, continue.
 
I don't see.

I don't expose myself to conservative messaging so you're gonna have to translate.

You are literally demanding that all suspects get to participate in all aspects of the investigation of their activities. Cross examine every informant. Publicly release their names and addresses.

You do know that it is these completely illogical takes on all of this, that come word for word from propaganda outlets, that is turning independents off on the trump administration, right?

But please, continue.

Your problem is you haven't come out from under the ether yet. You will. You won't like it but you will.

If you can pull yourself away from the MSM teat for just a second and stop worshiping everything they tell you as fact, you will realize the difference between an Impeachment Inquiry and an investigation.

You had the Mueller investigation. Right? Was that an Impeachment Inquiry too? Nope. It was an investigation. Had Mueller found criminal activities he could have recommended to the DOJ, they would have asked for an Impeachment from the House. They didn't do that. You can argue what you think Muellers report says all day but they didn't try to Impeach for it.

Just like Nixon, Just like Clinton, you have an investigation FIRST. Once your investigation is over you proceed to the House with your findings and ask for an Impeachment Inquiry vote. You present you evidence, collect the vote, and if successful, you have Congress confirm so you can have an Impeachment vote to send to the Senate for a conviction.

Why would you do it this way? So you can get the support of the voters and the representatives in the House. This is how they turned an entire country against Nixon in a very short time.

What are you doing now? You call it an Impeachment Inquiry but run it like an investigation. So here is your problem.

What are you going to do to get the House vote for Impeachment. Are you going to say, we interviewed the witnesses and we saw the evidence and we think the president should be Impeached so please vote for an Impeachment?

The moral of the story is, If you had the evidence and you had the vote, you would use the power of the House to get an Impeachment Inquiry vote.

Why wouldn't you ask for a House vote for an Impeachment Inquiry, because you don't have the evidence to get the vote so you need to hold these hearings in secret to come up with the evidence you want.

You might not be able to know the difference but the voters do. If you looked at the donation stats over the last 2 weeks you would know it as well.

Best of luck on this new style Impeachment Inquiry idea. Its looking like what it is. A political hit job with no chance of Impeachment
 
Let's be clear on something.


There is no accused. You have to have charges to be accused.

Do you understand that very basic fact?

You are right. Trump has not been accused and no verifiable justified charges have been given. Schiftt is just getting ahead of himself trying to build a false case for filing false accusations against Trump. This is going to turn out very badly for the bug-eyed barbarian.
 
You are right. Trump has not been accused and no verifiable justified charges have been given. Schiftt is just getting ahead of himself trying to build a false case for filing false accusations against Trump. This is going to turn out very badly for the bug-eyed barbarian.

But we both know trump is guilty
 
At this rate the republicans may have to vote to remove trump and keep pence or lose the whole enchilada.

McConnell just called trump a liar on camera.

I would not count your chickens.

Trump may eat them.

Out of a bucket.

My money is on Durham filing charges against the conspirators who lied to the FISA court in their zeal to build an insurance policy to keep Trump from serving as president in the event he was elected in spite of the 100 million to one odds the democrats laid against him.
 
But it's NOT a grand jury. That's kinda the point. It's a kangaroo court with Schiff calling the plays. Secrecy fosters suspicion and Schiff is as suspicious as hell.

++ Though I can understand your concern, I repeat, secrecy at this stage is standard operating procedure, in this case complete with dozens of republicans in the secret room. I investigated stuff for two different agencies, government and private, for about 25 years, and everything was kept secret at first for much the same reasons as offered here. Name an investigative procedure that doesn't begin similarly. The GOP pitchfork brigade that stormed the gates was brilliant politics, meaningless reality. They will have a message if the House convenes in secret. Til then, this is just a talking point for Fox News, albeit a good one for some of the low information voters Trump loves. When there are public hearings, there will be other talking points.

Point is the only people we know that Trump talked to about those conditions are members of OUR government. Heads of state barter back and forth all the time, that's still not the point.

++ The point has been made over and over again, that notwithstanding heads of state bartering, it is against the law to ask another government to get involved in our elections. That kind of bartering is prohibited. If that is the case here, Trump has broken the law.

Ukraine was implicated in the 2016 Russian interference scandal so there is reason to investigate; Biden, who may or may not end up BEING a political rival has ADMITTED to doing exactly what everyone o the left is accusing Trump of doing. Those are the facts.

++ Again, my impression is that there is nothing wrong with what Biden did, tho his son was obviously wrong to use his name to make money that way. But it transcends belief to assume that "Mr. Emoluments" Trump cares about corruption. You can probably study all this at Trump University with a grant from the Trump Foundation.
 
Last edited:
But we both know trump is guilty

He is, of something. Just like government document destroying Hillary, in spite of the defense her cult followers throw up to try to make her look like a saint.
 
He is, of something. Just like government document destroying Hillary, in spite of the defense her cult followers throw up to try to make her look like a saint.

Yes trump is guilty of bribery. I agree
 
My money is on Durham filing charges against the conspirators who lied to the FISA court in their zeal to build an insurance policy to keep Trump from serving as president in the event he was elected in spite of the 100 million to one odds the democrats laid against him.

Occam disagrees.
 
++ Again, my impression is that there is nothing wrong with what Biden did, tho his son was obviously wrong to use his name to make money that way. But it transcends belief to assume that "Mr. Emoluments" Trump cares about corruption. You can probably study all this at Trump University with a grant from the Trump Foundation.

LOL, and you think trotting out the "Emoluments" lunacy adds to your argument. :roll: Some folks understand that it just another ball of **** demented anti-Trumpers throw against the wall hoping it will stick.

Biden did "nothing wrong"? Biden coerces Ukraine to stop investigations or lose billions in aid, AND BRAGS ABOUT IT, and he "did nothing wrong", yet Trump asks for a "favor" to continue the investigations - which Zelensky had mentioned earlier in the phonecon - and Trump is "impeachable"? Seriously?
 
With witnesses. After the president is impeached he and his lawyers and all the republicans will have all the chance they need to show us all that this is a witch hunt. As our president likes to say, maybe they will, maybe they won't.

We'll all see what happens as time progresses. Let the truth out for all to see. Buckle up.
Witnesses? What's a friggin' witness going to say "I didn't see anything"? Seriously? You guys seem to forget the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", particularly where Trump is involved. You also are weak on "probable cause". A second hand "I heard from someone else . . ." doesn't come close. So far the only first person witness is Zelenski who has said he felt no pressure nor was he even aware the aid hand been delayed.

And last, but far from least - Biden confessed to coercion. That makes him not only a political opponent but possibly guilty of illegal activity.
 
Implicated by whom is the relevant question? If a republican put forth the suggestion, all is good, that's all the right needs to know to make it legitimate. Like Barr's current escapades traveling the world looking for evidence in other countries. All good.

Face it, trump is going to be impeached and maybe removed. Depends on how hard of a spot he puts the gop senators into.
LOL, sure. Whatever you say. :roll:
 
Alibis and witness statements are the usual exculpatory evidence. When these exist, it is almost certain that the defendant is innocent. When they don't exist, the defendant at least appears to be guilty. Continuing to investigate is warranted in this case and doing so is in no way a witch hunt.
That assumes there's actually a crime. You can't have witnesses for something that didn't happen. So far we have Zelenky's statements AND the transcript of the phonecon. Sounds pretty solid to me.
lwf said:
It is the prosecutor's job to investigate and produce evidence of wrong doing if it exists. It is the defense lawyers' job to produce exculpatory evidence that exonerates their client. In criminal defense 101 lawyers learn that when you have no exculpatory evidence to convince the jury of your client's innocence, you attempt to undermine the investigation itself. Try to find errors in the arrest process, or attempt to find conflicts of interest with the prosecution team. This is exactly what we are seeing from Trump defenders: Can't argue the facts, so attack the process.
But this ISN'T a trial, there's no defined crime. The only "prosecution evidence" is a second-hand recounting of what he "heard" and what "someone told him". And even that has become questionable with the news that the "whistleblower" sought out Schiff and his staff BEFORE filing his complaint. Oh, and Schiff still hasn't called this "prime witness" during the inquiry.

Stop me if you've heard this:

kangaroo impeachment.webp
 
That assumes there's actually a crime. You can't have witnesses for something that didn't happen. So far we have Zelenky's statements AND the transcript of the phonecon. Sounds pretty solid to me.
But this ISN'T a trial, there's no defined crime. The only "prosecution evidence" is a second-hand recounting of what he "heard" and what "someone told him". And even that has become questionable with the news that the "whistleblower" sought out Schiff and his staff BEFORE filing his complaint. Oh, and Schiff still hasn't called this "prime witness" during the inquiry.

Of course you can have witnesses for something that didn't happen. What do you think an alibi or character witness is?

It isn't a trial, it is an investigation. Therefore, the investigators have a duty to interview witnesses in private without the oversight of the accused or his attorneys.
 
Last edited:
By threatening to withhold money if the president did not fire his prosecutor which was causing Hunter Biden problems?

Nope. By withholding missles until Ukraine took out biden
 
Nope. By withholding missles until Ukraine took out biden

Trump should have said that to the Ukrainian president if that is what he wanted to say, instead of thinking the Ukrainian president would read between the lines. Trump should have followed Biden's example: "You either do what I tell you or I will take your money away and you will never get it."
 
Trump should have said that to the Ukrainian president if that is what he wanted to say, instead of thinking the Ukrainian president would read between the lines. Trump should have followed Biden's example: "You either do what I tell you or I will take your money away and you will never get it."

Then indict biden....oh wait....you cant
 
It appears the Ukrainian president did not read between the lines and come up with the same thing the democrats came up with.

Yeah. It was bribery
 
Back
Top Bottom