Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nancy shut up the AOC group. Nancy has FAR more power and influence than that gaggle of new girls.
OK so what is your theory as to why she proceed with impeachment after so many statements against it, and saying that it had to be bi-partisan or nothing, etc.?
OK so what is your theory as to why she proceed with impeachment after so many statements against it, and saying that it had to be bi-partisan or nothing, etc.?
The reason is obvious. Before the Ukraine scandal a minority of the D caucus supported it. After the Ukraine events came to light support increased and a majority of the D caucus was now in favor (as well as a majority of the broader public for the first time). Pelosi is the leader of her caucus and felt compelled to proceed because the Hastert rule is what goes in the House (majority of the majority party moves things).
The reason is obvious. Before the Ukraine scandal a minority of the D caucus supported it. After the Ukraine events came to light support increased and a majority of the D caucus was now in favor (as well as a majority of the broader public for the first time). Pelosi is the leader of her caucus and felt compelled to proceed because the Hastert rule is what goes in the House (majority of the majority party moves things).
The phone call to Ukraine was July 25, 2019. Pelosi's request for articles of impeachment was Dec. 5, 2019. Why wait over 4 months (and then hold the articles for another month)?
In any case, if you read the (so-called) transcript of the July 25 call, there is no there there. I am an old union guy who used to have to defend workers threatened with termination for alleged misdeeds. If the evidence was there, we would take the hit and maybe try to get the guy a different job. This 'transcipt' would have been laughed out of the initial meeting. It wouldn't even have gotten to step 2, a 'grievance panel.'
The phone call to Ukraine was July 25, 2019. Pelosi's request for articles of impeachment was Dec. 5, 2019. Why wait over 4 months (and then hold the articles for another month)?
The facts related to the call were not known to the House until late September.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
In any case, if you read the (so-called) transcript of the July 25 call, there is no there there. I am an old union guy who used to have to defend workers threatened with termination for alleged misdeeds. If the evidence was there, we would take the hit and maybe try to get the guy a different job. This 'transcipt' would have been laughed out of the initial meeting. It wouldn't even have gotten to step 2, a 'grievance panel.'
The POTUS attempted to leverage 400 million in taxpayer money for his re-election bid, maybe no objection from team red but definitely a "there there" for anyone else.
The facts related to the call were not known to the House until late September.
The POTUS attempted to leverage 400 million in taxpayer money for his re-election bid, maybe no objection from team red but definitely a "there there" for anyone else.
The 'whistleblower' complaint was filed on August 12. It was still almost 4 months until impeachment--5 if you count the 1 month that Nancy sat on the articles.
I am not a Trump supporter nor did I vote for him. As I said, I'm an old union guy (retired). From the 'transcript,' we can only conclude that "POTUS attempted to leverage 400 million in taxpayer money for his re-election bid" via inference/supposition. You normally don't get a 'just cause' termination, or a criminal conviction, or an impeachment, via inference or supposition.
You show me in the transcript where he says that he was seeking to leverage the aid for his re-election. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong.
The 'whistleblower' complaint was filed on August 12. It was still almost 4 months until impeachment--5 if you count the 1 month that Nancy sat on the articles.
I am not a Trump supporter nor did I vote for him. As I said, I'm an old union guy (retired). From the 'transcript,' we can only conclude that "POTUS attempted to leverage 400 million in taxpayer money for his re-election bid" via inference/supposition. You normally don't get a 'just cause' termination, or a criminal conviction, or an impeachment, via inference or supposition.
You show me in the transcript where he says that he was seeking to leverage the aid for his re-election. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong.
The testimony and evidence goes far beyond the whistleblower complaint and the transcript at this point. Plenty of documents and supporting testimony for that conclusion. Even several R senators that voted for acquittal anyway agreed with that conclusion.
Maybe you weren't paying attention but I'm not going to rehash it all here for you, this isn't an impeachment thread.
The testimony and evidence goes far beyond the whistleblower complaint and the transcript at this point. Plenty of documents and supporting testimony for that conclusion. Even several R senators that voted for acquittal anyway agreed with that conclusion.
Maybe you weren't paying attention but I'm not going to rehash it all here for you, this isn't an impeachment thread.
Almost all of the additional evidence was hearsay, and again, supposition/inference. The only added evidence I saw that was of significance was from David Holmes. However, he said that there were several witnesses present. As far as I know, the prosecution never brought them in to testify. Wonder why?
Maybe you can't have a discussion without patronizing/condescension, but I will let that last sentence slide.
edit: noted that you cannot show anything from the 'transcript' to back up your accusation.
Almost all of the additional evidence was hearsay, and again, supposition/inference. The only added evidence I saw that was of significance was from David Holmes. However, he said that there were several witnesses present. As far as I know, the prosecution never brought them in to testify. Wonder why?
Maybe you can't have a discussion without patronizing/condescension, but I will let that last sentence slide.
edit: noted that you cannot show anything from the 'transcript' to back up your accusation.
Note that I could but I’m not getting into it since it’s off topic and you’ve already decided anyway.
Bernie is socialist, not a communist. Take time to read some history...
Dude took his honeymoon in Russia, that's how much he admires Trotsky. If people really knew how Bernie Gutman ((())) felt, their blood would curdle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
