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.
I've seen it, the spin is what is inaccurate. He states that the money was withheld for a legitimate reason and it wasn't related to the phone call or Biden in any way
I've seen it, the spin is what is inaccurate. He states that the money was withheld for a legitimate reason and it wasn't related to the phone call or Biden in any way
He says that it was withheld, in part, to force them to investigate “Democrats” in 2016 and later said it was quid pro quo - which is the opposite of what they previously said.
I've seen it, the spin is what is inaccurate. He states that the money was withheld for a legitimate reason and it wasn't related to the phone call or Biden in any way
That's correct. And it takes the wind from the sails of the Democrats who have been attempting to sell this as election interference and whatever other descriptions they can come up with .
What nonsense.
He says that it was withheld, in part, to force them to investigate “Democrats” in 2016 and later said it was quid pro quo - which is the opposite of what they previously said.
What was said is that there was a quid pro quo proposed by Trump on the phone call which has been proven to be a lie.
The money withheld from the Ukraine was separate and was related to them investigating corruption, but not the corruption Biden was involved in, corruption involving the 2016 election.
I heard from some article that Pelosi and McConnell wanted to get this impeachment over with before next year and decided that the house would vote to impeach in November and the Senate would vote down the impeachment in December.... We will see.... Of course this whole thing smells political but then so is the impeachment...
My post was an 'in other words' of what the mod said. By all means, split hairs when the obvious isn't stated. I think it's pretty obvious that the mod was referring to the tradition re candidacy, and not the Congressional request, and that's what I meant as well. I'm not a Trump supporter/voter, nor a Republican, but I do think that if there are any posters in this thread who have pointed out that a vote to to authorize the impeachment inquiry isn't required (despite it being a tradition), and any of those posters requested that Trump release his tax returns re tradition, that any such posters are hypocrites. There's been a lot of back and forth in threads over the last three plus years over the tradition of candidates releasing their returns.....your point on the law, I don't see pointed out too often...which doesn't reflect negatively on your point, it just likely is. My point was an if, wondering what research would reveal. To normal members at least, whatever would be there in that research would be there...it couldn't be changed. The research would show 'the why'. There are either past posts requesting that Trump follow tradition and release his returns by some of the same posters pointing out that no vote is required re the inquiry (despite tradition), or there aren't.
Couple things:
a) That door swings both ways. Trump didn't release his tax return. So likewise, Trump supporters who were fine with that are hypocrites if they're demanding a vote to enable an impeachment inquiry.
b) The mod and others are WRONG about prior precedents concerning impeachment. In the case of Nixon, the House never voted to start the inquiry which lead to the articles of impeachment. And there was never a vote on the articles because Nixon resigned instead.
That's the problem, we don't know. Either we should know everything , and that means the other side , or nothing , until the entire truth be told.
It isn't " news" because it isn't applicable to what should be done. It is strictly being used for political purposes. It is part and parcel of a message of propaganda.
Keep wishing on that star. Politics has never been like that in my lifetime. I don't expect it to change any time soon. His opening statement, and any of his testimony that gets leaked is news. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuele
It would be better to conduct it as a Grand Jury does. No leaks, sworn to secrecy. When all is heard, release the results. Then the media can have at it, and everyone is on equal ground. Now, you have " journalists" looking to one up each other for ratings and financial gain.
Sorry, that's not how Congressional Committee investigations work. This isn't new. We can talk about how things "should be" all day long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuele
The Constitution gives " The House of Representatives " the task of presenting Articles of Impeachment. That implies " The House " as a collective institutional part of a branch of Government. If in this case, the Speaker is permitted to conduct an Inquiry for Impeachment, a power not conveyed to her. Where else, and in what manner would she also be able to act ? How about gun control ? Spending ? Why is it permitted for this and only this ? We know why.
Who says she's acting with "power not conveyed to her"? Everything currently happening is within the Constitution and the rules of the House of Reps. That you or I might not like it is irrelevant. The Constitution is silent on impeachment inquiries - thus the majority part in the House can conduct it in any manner they wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuele
This is different, for the reasons stated above.
No, you want it to be different. It's not actually different.
With Mulvaney's comments today, so far the White House/Trump has said:
1) We don't know why the strategic aid was held up.
2) The strategic aid was held up because we wanted Europe to contribute more first.
3) The strategic aid was held up because we wanted Ukraine to root out more corruption first.
4) The strategic aid was held up but not to compel Ukraine to do anything first.
5) The strategic aid was held up to get Ukraine to investigate Democrats and the DNC server in 2016.
With Mulvaney's comments today, so far the White House/Trump has said:
1) We don't know why the strategic aid was held up.
2) The strategic aid was held up because we wanted Europe to contribute more first.
3) The strategic aid was held up because we wanted Ukraine to root out more corruption first.
4) The strategic aid was held up but not to compel Ukraine to do anything first.
5) The strategic aid was held up to get Ukraine to investigate Democrats and the DNC server in 2016.
Am I missing any?
Possibly. It's been almost five minutes since you posted this.
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.
