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.
Democrats are trying to impeach the president for asking for assistance in doing the exact same investigations into the 2016 election that he and his campaign went through a full body cavity search for the last 3 years. Even worse, the thing that is sending Dems over the edge with this impeachment push is the president daring to think an actual quid pro quo CAUGHT ON TAPE should be looked in to. Think about that for a second..Democrats are actually moving forward on impeachment on abuse of power charges on a phone call in which there was nothing nefarious while everyone pretends that the former vice president isn't ON TAPE actually extorting Ukraine via a quid quo pro.
The Democrats charge of abuse of power is incredibly ironic too given the IG report that dropped yesterday. Despite the statement from the IG saying he didn't find documentary evidence of bias, the IG report was an extremely damning indictment of how the FBI handled the entire Russia investigation and the FISA warrant in particular. The FBI abused the absolute s### out of its power and literally spied on an opposition party's campaign and presidency based on DNC financed fake dossier yet Dems have the gall to feign outrage over a tame phone call which we have the transcript of.
There's no way Pelosi and most of the Democratic party actually believes the impeachment farce they are trying to sell. They aren't dumb. Only explanation is that they along with a lot of Deep State Never Trumpers (both Democrats and Republicans) are terrified of what and who will be exposed if the administration digs too deep into Ukraine. No other reason for this desperate hurried attempt to get rid of the president makes sense based on how big of a political loser this impeachment is for the Democrats. They're either incredibly naive and think their little East Coast and West Coast bubble of elitist friends represent the attitudes of the country at large or they think the country at large is too stupid to see this for the idiotic farce it is or they're scared s###less of this administration exposing serious crimes committed by "the Swamp". Nothing else makes any sense.
I am not a lawyer but am an old union guy. I used to often have to sit in on meetings where management was trying to fire someone over some accused offense. Most if not all union CBAs have a 'just cause' provision which says that management must show 'just cause' to fire a union employee. And the burden of proof is on management.
If they had the goods on the guy (e.g. video evidence or direct witnesses) the union would not fight it. At best we'd try to get him another job if he was generally a good guy. But in many cases, mgmt. would try to fire people without evidence. We would file a 'just cause' grievance and take it all the way to arbitration if necessary.
If this Trump accusation had been in front of us, it would have been laughed out of the initial meeting. Read the 'transcript.' There is no evidence there.
There is also no transcript of the call. All it is is notes containing ... where information was omitted. There was never a recording or a transcript.
The question isn't just about "who's upset". The question is more how much US tax dollars has the Demolibs spent trying to remove President Trump from office because they lost in 2016. That's what most of us are upset about. The only good thing that's come out of all this bs that the demolibs have done since 2016 is strengthen the 2020 election for President Trump. So ok, we have trade-offs here, spend millions and maybe even a billion coming up with non-stop bs for three solid years at the tax payers expense, but....President Trump....for sure....gets another four years in office.
As soon as you demolibs stop crying and maybe start to do what you're supposed to do, you may start accomplishing more then just crapping and pizzing out your drawers.
Think I'm BS'ing? Ok. Name one accomplishment the top demolib leadership has done since 2016 that has absolutely nothing to do with President Trump. Just as I thought. Absolutely! Nothing!
There is also no transcript of the call. All it is is notes containing ... where information was omitted. There was never a recording or a transcript.
Yes, that's why I put the word transcript in quotes. Usually I say 'so-called transcript' but I was too lazy this time. I heard an interview of an ex-NSC staffer who said the term they use is 'telcon,' but everyone is using 'transcript.'
In any case, Alexander Vindman, who was in on the call, testified that the notes of the call were accurate and reasonably complete.
This is the central evidence against Trump. I think the reason there's so much extraneous noise in these hearings is that there's no evidence there in the so-called transcript.
The lack of intelligence represented here by the comments from the left makes it impossible to take them seriously. I have yet to read a cogent argument; just daft and desperate proclamations, as if just merely stamping their feet and balling their fists while making their petulant claims somehow makes them true. Their resentment of the president’s successes seems evident. Being the most successful president in modern history makes them hate him even more.
To the reasonable, intelligent folks on this thread: do you think their stupidity rises to the level of a mental illness? Do you think some of these sad folks are intentionally lying? My pity for these sad people ”trumps” my amusement at their irrational rants.
Thank God they are clearly the minority.
When I read something like what I outlined in red, it makes me realize facts mean zilch to you. "Most successful President in modern history"?
Yeah, I guess if you count things like creating more turmoil and causing more problems than any human on the planet ! His Presidency has been a train wreck since day one, and is going more off the rails every day.
I am not a lawyer but am an old union guy. I used to often have to sit in on meetings where management was trying to fire someone over some accused offense. Most if not all union CBAs have a 'just cause' provision which says that management must show 'just cause' to fire a union employee. And the burden of proof is on management.
If they had the goods on the guy (e.g. video evidence or direct witnesses) the union would not fight it. At best we'd try to get him another job if he was generally a good guy. But in many cases, mgmt. would try to fire people without evidence. We would file a 'just cause' grievance and take it all the way to arbitration if necessary.
If this Trump accusation had been in front of us, it would have been laughed out of the initial meeting. Read the 'transcript.' There is no evidence there.
You believe all those first hand witnesses are really partisan liars? There's too many of them for that. If you actually listen to their testimony it's obvious.
Nadler says Article 1 of impeachment will charge “abuse of power” by the president, and Article 2 will charge him with “concealing evidence” about how he abused his power. Wait. If you don’t have the evidence, how can you charge Article 1? Seems the articles cancel each other out
Main law point is simple. Dems are claiming two articles: abuse of office and obstruction of congress. Both might arguably be within the Constitutional Conventions original “…or Maladministration.” But both are expressly not in the founders ultimately adopted British term “…or high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Leftists are attempting to use a Bill of Attainder (maloadministration, which means we don’t approve of YOU) ... which the Founders rejected.
Abuse of office is also factually disproven at least four separate ways.
1.The transcript shows the favor asked was investigating Crowdstrike concerning the 2016 election, from which PDJT did NOT benefit.
2. Giuliani had completed his initial Ukraine investigation (Chalupa, Ukraine Embassy), during which he stumbled upon the Biden corruption, in Feb 2019. Biden did not declare until April 2019.
3. A2§3 take care clause requires PDJT to follow up on the Giuliani discovered Biden corruption. Especially given the 2018 CFR video on which Biden explicitly brags about his extortion to get Shokin fired within 6 hours.
4. Regardless of what Yovanovitch and Sondland might think, A2§2.2 says PDJT, not they, is in charge of US foreign policy, including for Ukraine.
The other BIG abuse defect is that the Article does NOT say what thing of personal benefit PDJT obtained by his purported abuse of office. In any normal sense, that is by itself a fatal charging defect. Crimes are not left to the jury’s imagination except in a Kafkaesque world.
Obstruction of Congress is disproven three different ways.
1. Congress has not even followed its own ‘new special’ rules concerning its impeachment hearings. For example, no minority witness days, as demanded in writing but not granted. You cannot obstruct an irregular random process.
2. Schiff’s Intel committee had no proper subpoena power despite claiming it did. His ‘subpoenas’ were legally mere letter demands that can simply be ignored. Obstruction requires not obeying a lawful subpoena. SCOTUS has ruled Congress has that power in only two cases:
—making, repealing, or amending a law under the expressly delimited legistaltive powers of A1§8.
—exercising oversight of executive administration of N existing law.
Schiff’s ‘impeachment inquiry’ was neither.
3. Using lawful judicial processes to stall or block anything is by A3§2.1 definition NOT obstruction.
Add to all that - Schiff refused to even show up st the Judiciary Hearing to present his case.
Nadler says Article 1 of impeachment will charge “abuse of power” by the president, and Article 2 will charge him with “concealing evidence” about how he abused his power. Wait. If you don’t have the evidence, how can you charge Article 1? Seems the articles cancel each other out
Main law point is simple. Dems are claiming two articles: abuse of office and obstruction of congress. Both might arguably be within the Constitutional Conventions original “…or Maladministration.” But both are expressly not in the founders ultimately adopted British term “…or high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The Leftists are attempting to use a Bill of Attainder (maloadministration, which means we don’t approve of YOU) ... which the Founders rejected.
Abuse of office is also factually disproven at least four separate ways.
1.The transcript shows the favor asked was investigating Crowdstrike concerning the 2016 election, from which PDJT did NOT benefit.
2. Giuliani had completed his initial Ukraine investigation (Chalupa, Ukraine Embassy), during which he stumbled upon the Biden corruption, in Feb 2019. Biden did not declare until April 2019.
3. A2§3 take care clause requires PDJT to follow up on the Giuliani discovered Biden corruption. Especially given the 2018 CFR video on which Biden explicitly brags about his extortion to get Shokin fired within 6 hours.
4. Regardless of what Yovanovitch and Sondland might think, A2§2.2 says PDJT, not they, is in charge of US foreign policy, including for Ukraine.
The other BIG abuse defect is that the Article does NOT say what thing of personal benefit PDJT obtained by his purported abuse of office. In any normal sense, that is by itself a fatal charging defect. Crimes are not left to the jury’s imagination except in a Kafkaesque world.
Obstruction of Congress is disproven three different ways.
1. Congress has not even followed its own ‘new special’ rules concerning its impeachment hearings. For example, no minority witness days, as demanded in writing but not granted. You cannot obstruct an irregular random process.
2. Schiff’s Intel committee had no proper subpoena power despite claiming it did. His ‘subpoenas’ were legally mere letter demands that can simply be ignored. Obstruction requires not obeying a lawful subpoena. SCOTUS has ruled Congress has that power in only two cases:
—making, repealing, or amending a law under the expressly delimited legistaltive powers of A1§8.
—exercising oversight of executive administration of N existing law.
Schiff’s ‘impeachment inquiry’ was neither.
3. Using lawful judicial processes to stall or block anything is by A3§2.1 definition NOT obstruction.
Add to all that - Schiff refused to even show up st the Judiciary Hearing to present his case.
Great summation of the Democrat farce!!
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.
His Presidency has been a train wreck since day one, and is going more off the rails every day.
