Bluegrassrivals

Well the Dems have carried through with their threats to impeach the President. Threats in fact which officially began 19 minutes after MR Trump's inauguration https://noqreport.com/2019/10/11/reminde...ent-sworn/

Actually however, even as the goofballs were out in the streets on their knees howling noooooh, the threats of impeachment had already started. Only moments after the election results flashed across our TV screens, vows to that end were being voiced. The impeachment is BASELESS in any form of fact or demonstrable legal trespass. It is rather, grounded in the biases of the left. It is with the left that one may see all forms of biases being exercised, to include nuclear option number one, that being racial bias.

So while the formal impeachment mis-proceedings dirged on and on, House minority Republicans were denied the right to participate. No witnesses or any form of meaningful defense were permitted by Schiff and Nadler. And now that those kangaroo anti-heroics of the House are mercifully past us; Chuck Schumer, who BTW represents the minority party of the Senate (which so happens to be the Democrats), takes up the microphone for act two.

As mentioned, House Republicans were denied the right to put on a reasonable defense, and what does Senate Minority Leader Schumer (and Gillibrand) now demand? Why just everything that the Dems just denied Republicans in the Schiff Show of course. He wants witnesses, he wants a thorough and exhaustive proceeding that will push it's way through the 2020 election season. Duh.

I have always said the fortunes of this land rise and fall with the character of the voter. 2020 may well be the final curtain call for moral integrity. Those on the right who claim to love this land but who do not think it necessary to bother to vote, will rue the day.

Sham and scam from the get go. Not only will the President continue to kick butt for our country there's a great chance he will be re-elected. The Dems have reached a new level of hypocrisy and degradation.

We independents continue to wait for a moderate dem who isn't bat poop crazy. Biden lost his marbles years ago and the radicals have stepped up their game. The Republicans will grow stronger in the presence of the current radical dem movement. Moderation not big shifts wins folks!

Political games. Democrats gave the bully a bloody nose, but that's about all.
Republicans are playing the victim card forgetting they rammed a fishing expedition through 21 years ago today on Bill.

Both sides are vehemently arguing about corruption in an obscure nation in Eastern Europe, and both are guilty.

I'm starting to wonder what is going on while we are watching the "dog and pony" show.

Cardfan1 Wrote:Political games. Democrats gave the bully a bloody nose, but that's about all.
Republicans are playing the victim card forgetting they rammed a fishing expedition through 21 years ago today on Bill.

Both sides are vehemently arguing about corruption in an obscure nation in Eastern Europe, and both are guilty.

I'm starting to wonder what is going on while we are watching the "dog and pony" show.

What's to wonder? They're terrified of 2020. A number of the esteemed House patriots to include Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, have stepped forward to offer concerns about the 2020 election. Those concerns of course are that Trump will win again.

No offense there Cardfan, but I defy you to name so much as one instance of Trump stepping across the lines of the law or political correctness. Name one legal trespass or one instance of his being either racially biased or insensitive. I'm not talking about the blanket charges without substance being cast daily by what is evidently your party and the complicitous media. Such as when they declare Trump to be racist without one shred of evidence or one instance of same to back it up. I mean one factual occasion of trespass, and that includes even the most casual aside which he may have made privately in conversation or otherwise. And BTW, don't ever kid yourself. The rabid chipmunks of the left have been busy in the bowels of government, burning up likely millions of tax dollars in the effort to run across so much as one occasion of bias they could hang around the President's neck.

I can't think of a more interviewed, more quoted, more exposed by means of video and audio, newspaper and magazine, and other sources such as meeting minutes, radio and TV shows etc., than Donald J Trump. And after four plus years of sifting through all of what is surely mountains of such evidentiary promise, they come up with---- NADA. Not one instance of slander, not one statement of bias, nothing, zip, goose egg, zero. But maybe you can help those desperate Dems out here. Tell us what you know. :biggrin:

IF Dems had so much as a whiff of legitimacy to attach to their articles of impeachment, they'd be shouting them from the housetops. But not one has emerged, and not one fact witness has been involved at any point. It's all a bunch of vagueries and innuendo, wrapped up in the Dem's peculiar and revisionist misinterpretations of the law and the Constitution.

But I am glad you brought up Bill Clinton. I don't know about you, but I was old enough to take in the real truth of the Clinton Impeachment. Which unlike this recent farce, was presented in precedent and in legal and honorable conditions.

There is nothing to gain by trying to re-impeach good ol Bill here, suffice it to say that he lost his license to practice law and he was fined for lying to a federal judge, not to mention the good folks of the USA. But on to the point, Dems had been looking to "get even" for the Clinton Impeachment since those days until finally, lacking any form of substance, they had to create an ax to grind out of pure fiction. There is no irony in the fact that they brought this thing to vote on the same date as the Bill Clinton Impeachment. In their minds they have delivered the poetic justice they promised and threatened Republicans with back in the 90's. The only problem is it's a complete farce.

Spirit100 Wrote:Sham and scam from the get go. Not only will the President continue to kick butt for our country there's a great chance he will be re-elected. The Dems have reached a new level of hypocrisy and degradation.

We independents continue to wait for a moderate dem who isn't bat poop crazy. Biden lost his marbles years ago and the radicals have stepped up their game. The Republicans will grow stronger in the presence of the current radical dem movement. Moderation not big shifts wins folks!

There was a time in this country when the common man couldn't imagine the shenanigans we have seen since the Fast and Furious Scandal. Between 2006 and 2011 authorities allowed guns to "walk: across the border to Drug Cartels. Since that day we have seen everything from Defecate on MainStreet to lost governmental Emails to the Brett Kanvanaugh circus, to this sham impeachment.

Believing that their constituents would never wake up, at some point in the past Democrats became so used to employing deception in their dealings with the public, that they became totally reliant on the practice. In fact it's now gone on so long that those having been elected to the Congress in recent years are themselves the product of the very mass indoctrination put on by their own Party. Completely desensitized to the deception, people like AOC and others are defiant in their true believer-isms.

The government does not provide jobs, in fact the government is not supposed to provide anything at all by way of substance. Safety and self sufficiency in an environment of equal opportunity, is supposed to be the American way. Ours is the ability to provide for ourselves, well, not so much anymore. I just heard San Fran Nan state to her fans that the federal revenues realized by the passage of USMCA were going towards providing free health care. Democrats will promise anything they have to, in order to get elected. Anything.

Nancy announced additionally, not in as many words, that not only did she have complete control of the House, she can also control the US Senate. No kidding. In defiance of the law, (shocker) she will "hold" immediate delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she is satisfied that the Senate will take up the matter of her impeachment in a way which conforms to her expectations. Or should I say hopes. Yeah, that's the ticket! Sure! :biglmao:

TheRealThing Wrote:What's to wonder? They're terrified of 2020. A number of the esteemed House patriots to include Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, have stepped forward to offer concerns about the 2020 election. Those concerns of course are that Trump will win again.

No offense there Cardfan, but I defy you to name so much as one instance of Trump stepping across the lines of the law or political correctness. Name one legal trespass or one instance of his being either racially biased or insensitive. I'm not talking about the blanket charges without substance being cast daily by what is evidently your party and the complicitous media. Such as when they declare Trump to be racist without one shred of evidence or one instance of same to back it up. I mean one factual occasion of trespass, and that includes even the most casual aside which he may have made privately in conversation or otherwise. And BTW, don't ever kid yourself. The rabid chipmunks of the left have been busy in the bowels of government, burning up likely millions of tax dollars in the effort to run across so much as one occasion of bias they could hang around the President's neck.

I can't think of a more interviewed, more quoted, more exposed by means of video and audio, newspaper and magazine, and other sources such as meeting minutes, radio and TV shows etc., than Donald J Trump. And after four plus years of sifting through all of what is surely mountains of such evidentiary promise, they come up with---- NADA. Not one instance of slander, not one statement of bias, nothing, zip, goose egg, zero. But maybe you can help those desperate Dems out here. Tell us what you know. :biggrin:

IF Dems had so much as a whiff of legitimacy to attach to their articles of impeachment, they'd be shouting them from the housetops. But not one has emerged, and not one fact witness has been involved at any point. It's all a bunch of vagueries and innuendo, wrapped up in the Dem's peculiar and revisionist misinterpretations of the law and the Constitution.

But I am glad you brought up Bill Clinton. I don't know about you, but I was old enough to take in the real truth of the Clinton Impeachment. Which unlike this recent farce, was presented in precedent and in legal and honorable conditions.

There is nothing to gain by trying to re-impeach good ol Bill here, suffice it to say that he lost his license to practice law and he was fined for lying to a federal judge, not to mention the good folks of the USA. But on to the point, Dems had been looking to "get even" for the Clinton Impeachment since those days until finally, lacking any form of substance, they had to create an ax to grind out of pure fiction. There is no irony in the fact that they brought this thing to vote on the same date as the Bill Clinton Impeachment. In their minds they have delivered the poetic justice they promised and threatened Republicans with back in the 90's. The only problem is it's a complete farce.

There is nearly a 50/50 split on impeach and removal unless you ask Fox News that has impeach and removal at 51%. I would say the presidential race is wide open.

Come on, it's not fiction. Democrats seem to have plenty of circumstantial evidence that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden by withholding aid. It's not enough to convict him criminally, but we aren't in a criminal court. There may be more evidence out there, but Trump has forbidden his minions from testifying: hence the obstruction of Congress.

Democrats got what they wanted done. Now I bet their plan is to muddy up the news cycle with Impeachment news and spats with the Senate keeping the focus off of any Trump accomplishments.

Trump needs to accept some blame. He was told that eyes and ears would be all over him after the House flipped blue. All he did was poke the hornet's nest

Oh yeah, Bill was guilty. He deserved to be impeached, but let's not pretend it wasn't a partisan smear that was also a farce. I also watched and the differences were minimal besides Clinton's people participated more. Heck, he was even deposed, which turned out to be a poor decision. I doubt Trump would ever do that. I wouldn't if I were him.

I also remember Democrats trying to brag about the booming economy and budget surplus the Clinton administration accomplished throughout the impeachment during the next election. Made no difference: the White House went Republican and Red House of Reps never felt a blip.

Cardfan1 Wrote:There is nearly a 50/50 split on impeach and removal unless you ask Fox News that has impeach and removal at 51%. I would say the presidential race is wide open.

Come on, it's not fiction. Democrats seem to have plenty of circumstantial evidence that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden by withholding aid. It's not enough to convict him criminally, but we aren't in a criminal court. There may be more evidence out there, but Trump has forbidden his minions from testifying: hence the obstruction of Congress.

Democrats got what they wanted done. Now I bet their plan is to muddy up the news cycle with Impeachment news and spats with the Senate keeping the focus off of any Trump accomplishments.

Trump needs to accept some blame. He was told that eyes and ears would be all over him after the House flipped blue. All he did was poke the hornet's nest

Oh yeah, Bill was guilty. He deserved to be impeached, but let's not pretend it wasn't a partisan smear that was also a farce. I also watched and the differences were minimal besides Clinton's people participated more. Heck, he was even deposed, which turned out to be a poor decision. I doubt Trump would ever do that. I wouldn't if I were him.

I also remember Democrats trying to brag about the booming economy and budget surplus the Clinton administration accomplished throughout the impeachment during the next election. Made no difference: the White House went Republican and Red House of Reps never felt a blip.

I will readily grant your point that public opinion is unfortunately, waaay more slanted against the President than I feel is warranted. My point exactly though, was that Dems from the get-go, have knocked themselves out to smear the President in order to either remove him outright, or diminish his administration to the point of being of no effect. That's why I asked you to name one thing that you know he's actually, provably done wrong. Much less said. I say you or nobody else can do that because all the incoming has been a bunch of made up slander inflamed by and delivered by a more than willing press corps.

The President's self confessed past character flaws, and the fact that he is not guilty of treason and bribery and collusion and racial bias and the myriad of other charges leveled by Dems, can both be true and exist at the same time. In a court room the prosecutor slams and defames everyone prone to provide exculpatory testimony. And it's no holds barred where the defendant is concerned. What I am saying is given the time and effort invested to tear down this President's reputation over the past 4 years, it's no surprise to me that Dems have managed to convince people the President should be removed from office. The reason of course, is to ruin him and the hated Republicans. The method is smear politics, and is straight out of the DNC playbook, and is certainly nothing new. In 2012 Harry Reid got up on the floor of the Senate and said that then candidate for President Mitt Romney hadn't paid any income taxes in 10 years. He later laughed about the lie in a moment of candor.

The sacred cow in all of this, The Whistle Blower :yikes: is reportedly an intel employee. Which of course disqualifies him from said status. And there is a cavalcade of dead bodies strewn over the political landscape of late. Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, whose dealings the AG is determined to unearth. Things will continue to come to light.

The Constitution grants the President authority in matters of national security and foreign policy. He has the right and the power to withhold aid if he smells a rat. Further in the present matter, the President said do "us" a favor. "US" as in the United States. Not us as suggested by the prof who said Trump refers to himself as 'us,' in the manner of English monarchs. I mean that whole line is ridiculous. We're suddenly these days tore all to pieces over delayed military aid. But we were peepless when Putin was steamrolling Crimea and Obama gave a flat no to military aid all together. But added--- "I'll send you all some fuzzy blankets and such." :please:

There are no fact witnesses. There is a transcript, there are deepstaters, there are political detractors. That's not evidence. What that is is, is running over evidence, to get to the hearsay and innuendo.


ABTW, I'm in no way excusing Republicans for impeaching Clinton. But I do believe they have learned the hard way, that impeaching a President is to be done only as a last resort. Trump is no more a threat to this land than was Clinton. And his contribution to history may well prove to eclipse that of MR Clinton.

TheRealThing Wrote:I will readily grant your point that public opinion is unfortunately, waaay more slanted against the President than I feel is warranted. My point exactly though, was that Dems from the get-go, have knocked themselves out to smear the President in order to either remove him outright, or diminish his administration to the point of being of no effect. That's why I asked you to name one thing that you know he's actually, provably done wrong. Much less said. I say you or nobody else can do that because all the incoming has been a bunch of made up slander inflamed by and delivered by a more than willing press corps.

The President's self confessed past character flaws, and the fact that he is not guilty of treason and bribery and collusion and racial bias and the myriad of other charges leveled by Dems, can both be true and exist at the same time. In a court room the prosecutor slams and defames everyone prone to provide exculpatory testimony. And it's no holds barred where the defendant is concerned. What I am saying is given the time and effort invested to tear down this President's reputation over the past 4 years, it's no surprise to me that Dems have managed to convince people the President should be removed from office. The reason of course, is to ruin him and the hated Republicans. The method is smear politics, and is straight out of the DNC playbook, and is certainly nothing new. In 2012 Harry Reid got up on the floor of the Senate and said that then candidate for President Mitt Romney hadn't paid any income taxes in 10 years. He later laughed about the lie in a moment of candor.

The sacred cow in all of this, The Whistle Blower :yikes: is reportedly an intel employee. Which of course disqualifies him from said status. And there is a cavalcade of dead bodies strewn over the political landscape of late. Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, whose dealings the AG is determined to unearth. Things will continue to come to light.

The Constitution grants the President authority in matters of national security and foreign policy. He has the right and the power to withhold aid if he smells a rat. Further in the present matter, the President said do "us" a favor. "US" as in the United States. Not us as suggested by the prof who said Trump refers to himself as 'us,' in the manner of English monarchs. I mean that whole line is ridiculous. We're suddenly these days tore all to pieces over delayed military aid. But we were peepless when Putin was steamrolling Crimea and Obama gave a flat no to military aid all together. But added--- "I'll send you all some fuzzy blankets and such." :please:

There are no fact witnesses. There is a transcript, there are deepstaters, there are political detractors. That's not evidence. What that is is, is running over evidence, to get to the hearsay and innuendo.


ABTW, I'm in no way excusing Republicans for impeaching Clinton. But I do believe they have learned the hard way, that impeaching a President is to be done only as a last resort. Trump is no more a threat to this land than was Clinton. And his contribution to history may well prove to eclipse that of MR Clinton.

Easy let’s not put a halo on the man. You’re going to tarnish his image of the dude who “takes it to the libs.”

There is way too much clutching of pearls from both sides. And both sides spew vitriol, and it’s their leaders who spur that on.

I’m ashamed of both Presidents in their handling of Ukraine. What an opportunity for our nation to head off Russian expansion: One turned a blind eye while the other tried to extort. Both shameful.

What is the purpose of talking to the whistleblower now? Most of the people on the call have now corroborated the report. It seems to me that people just want this person outed, so they can punish them, which is why they have this whistleblower protection.

Maybe we will get fact witnesses in the Senate trial. I am sure
Mulvany, Bolton, Pompeo, and Giuliani could clear all this up.

Cardfan1 Wrote:Easy let’s not put a halo on the man. You’re going to tarnish his image of the dude who “takes it to the libs.”

There is way too much clutching of pearls from both sides. And both sides spew vitriol, and it’s their leaders who spur that on.

I’m ashamed of both Presidents in their handling of Ukraine. What an opportunity for our nation to head off Russian expansion: One turned a blind eye while the other tried to extort. Both shameful.

What is the purpose of talking to the whistleblower now? Most of the people on the call have now corroborated the report. It seems to me that people just want this person outed, so they can punish them, which is why they have this whistleblower protection.

[SIZE="3"]Maybe we will get fact witnesses in the Senate trial. I am sure
Mulvany, Bolton, Pompeo, and Giuliani could clear all this up[/SIZE].

First, both side do not spew vitriol. And if you really do remember the Clinton impeachment you know Republicans just recently began to defend themselves against the verbal onslaught.

The bolded--- Yeah maybe. There is of course is a major problem with your logic. There was never any evidence upon which to base even one of the 4 year long series of ever morphing charges in the first place. Innocent until proven guilty, where have I heard that? It was clear evidence that Adam Schiff, who never ever fibs, had in his possession, remember? And yet the investigation in search of a crime rages on.

Again. The President has the authority to withhold aid and Americans could use a little wisdom in these matters if you ask me. As things stand we taxpayers have directly funded quite enough terrorism for example.

But those poor Ukrainians over there, just too stupid to know how shamefully they've been played.

TheRealThing Wrote:First, both side do not spew vitriol. And if you really do remember the Clinton impeachment you know Republicans just recently began to defend themselves against the verbal onslaught.

The bolded--- Yeah maybe. There is of course is a major problem with your logic. There was never any evidence upon which to base even one of the 4 year long series of ever morphing charges in the first place. Innocent until proven guilty, where have I heard that? It was clear evidence that Adam Schiff, who never ever fibs, had in his possession, remember? And yet the investigation in search of a crime rages on.

Again. The President has the authority to withhold aid and Americans could use a little wisdom in these matters if you ask me. As things stand we taxpayers have directly funded quite enough terrorism for example.

But those poor Ukrainians over there, just too stupid to know how shamefully they've been played.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's both sides. Republicans are just now defending themselves? Come on, man! You can't actually believe that.

Like I said earlier there is circumstantial evidence that warrants an investigation. Personally, I would like to see it through with the fact witnesses, but this isn't a criminal court and democrats are playing hardball politics. We got what we got. Barring a trial he won't be removed on the evidence presented at this point.

The president can withhold aid, and IMO should withhold a lot more. Ukraine wasn't one of those times.

Cardfan1 Wrote:Nah, I'm pretty sure it's both sides. Republicans are just now defending themselves? Come on, man! You can't actually believe that.

Like I said earlier there is circumstantial evidence that warrants an investigation. Personally, I would like to see it through with the fact witnesses, but this isn't a criminal court and democrats are playing hardball politics. We got what we got. Barring a trial he won't be removed on the evidence presented at this point.

The president can withhold aid, and IMO should withhold a lot more. Ukraine wasn't one of those times.

I can only accept the reality my eyes have seen and my ears have heard. Both sides don't do it. That among other things was why I baled out of the Democrat Party in the first place. Along with the fact that I hate being lied to. Bill Clinton's antics taught the whole party what not to do in the Oval Office and how to lie on a professional level. Not saying he was a bad President, and certainly not saying Republicans didn't rue the day they impeached him. In Lead Impeachment Manager Henry Hyde's letter to the Senate, Bill Clinton is clearly charged with the crime of perjury. He was found guilty and fined by a federal judge. And disbarred later for same. Nothing like that has happened involving DJT. And no Senate trial will convict him without meaningful evidence of factual wrongdoing.

MR Hyde felt compelled to impeach the President on grounds of perjury. Not to in any way punish Ol Bill for bad sexual behavior. Now, that's not to say that the Democrats of the day didn't repeat the "it was just sex" narrative 20 billion times to make it seem that way. And certainly they managed to somehow get the subject of slavery and racism on center stage too. But I can tell you that the Republicans did a lousy job of justifying the whole affair. And they lost the argument to Dems who 'crafted' the more clever narrative. Republicans had the high ground, but failed miserably to get the message out.

But even circumstantial evidence has to be verifiable. (id est blue dress) Nothing being said by the Dems has been supported by evidence, and that is why you nor anyone else can name a crime. Donald J Trump has a spotty past, no doubt. But the likelihood that any of MR Trump's Democrat/liberal/deepstate/RINO detractors are worthy to cast the first stone, is highly improbable. All Dems have shown so far are opinion and contempt and guile. But hey, it certainly worked before.

It is odd though. Bill Clinton's sexual exploits didn't bother the left at all. The sexual affairs of DJT's past on the other hand, defy the English language's ability of aptly bash him with.

TheRealThing Wrote:I can only accept the reality my eyes have seen and my ears have heard. Both sides don't do it. That among other things was why I baled out of the Democrat Party in the first place. Along with the fact that I hate being lied to. Bill Clinton's antics taught the whole party what not to do in the Oval Office and how to lie on a professional level. Not saying he was a bad President, and certainly not saying Republicans didn't rue the day they impeached him. In Lead Impeachment Manager Henry Hyde's letter to the Senate, Bill Clinton is clearly charged with the crime of perjury. He was found guilty and fined by a federal judge. And disbarred later for same. Nothing like that has happened involving DJT. And no Senate trial will convict him without meaningful evidence of factual wrongdoing.

MR Hyde felt compelled to impeach the President on grounds of perjury. Not to in any way punish Ol Bill for bad sexual behavior. Now, that's not to say that the Democrats of the day didn't repeat the "it was just sex" narrative 20 billion times to make it seem that way. And certainly they managed to somehow get the subject of slavery and racism on center stage too. But I can tell you that the Republicans did a lousy job of justifying the whole affair. And they lost the argument to Dems who 'crafted' the more clever narrative. Republicans had the high ground, but failed miserably to get the message out.

But even circumstantial evidence has to be verifiable. (id est blue dress) Nothing being said by the Dems has been supported by evidence, and that is why you nor anyone else can name a crime. Donald J Trump has a spotty past, no doubt. But the likelihood that any of MR Trump's Democrat/liberal/deepstate/RINO detractors are worthy to cast the first stone, is highly improbable. All Dems have shown so far are opinion and contempt and guile. But hey, it certainly worked before.

It is odd though. Bill Clinton's sexual exploits didn't bother the left at all. The sexual affairs of DJT's past on the other hand, defy the English language's ability of aptly bash him with.

If you listen to one politician, you are being lied too. You sound like a huge Trump supporter. He lies constantly.

This isn’t a criminal court. Trump or any other president is basically getting fired from his job; not going to jail, so the HOR doesn’t have to prove a crime just the fact that what he is doing isn’t congruent with the Constitution.

Timeline, motive, and witnesses is enough to start the process and that’s what we are in...the beginning of a case. If we were to loosely compare this to a criminal case, I see impeachment as a grand jury that sees enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

Your last point is where is what I think is laughable about both sides today. Both dismiss their man’s exploits while “clutching their pearls” over the other. The comparisons between the two are dumbfounding.

Cardfan1 Wrote:If you listen to one politician, you are being lied too. You sound like a huge Trump supporter. He lies constantly.

Lying is not an impeachable offense.

Cardfan1 Wrote:This isn’t a criminal court. Trump or any other president is basically getting fired from his job; not going to jail, so the HOR doesn’t have to prove a crime just the fact that what he is doing isn’t congruent with the Constitution.

The Constitutional burden on the House of Representatives for impeachment is a finding that the President committed a high crime or misdemeanor. The reason that Democrats denied President Trump due process by denying the Republican members of the House the right to call witnesses and the reason that Pelosi is attempting to meddle in the Senate's role in trying an impeached president is that there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime and certainly no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

It is debatable whether the House has actually impeached Trump because Pelosi has failed to deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. If she persists, this election year sham will likely backfire on Democrats. Voters are not likely to take kindly to House Democrats attempt to smear the president by delaying the Senate trial to which he is Constitutionally entitled.

Cardfan1 Wrote:Timeline, motive, and witnesses is enough to start the process and that’s what we are in...the beginning of a case. If we were to loosely compare this to a criminal case, I see impeachment as a grand jury that sees enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

Your last point is where is what I think is laughable about both sides today. Both dismiss their man’s exploits while “clutching their pearls” over the other. The comparisons between the two are dumbfounding.

This should be a criminal case and the defendants should include Adam Schiff and Obama leftovers in the Justice Department who fabricated evidence and used a Clinton-financed opposition report that resulted in FISA wiretaps and led to the Mueller witch hunt.

I am not now, nor will I ever be a Trump fan, but Democrats' refusal to accept the results of a fair and legal election, their misuse of public funds, their abuse of power, and their criminal acts aimed at unseating a duly elected president will be remembered as a very dark and chilling period of American history for generations to come.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Lying is not an impeachable offense.

The Constitutional burden on the House of Representatives for impeachment is a finding that the President committed a high crime or misdemeanor. The reason that Democrats denied President Trump due process by denying the Republican members of the House the right to call witnesses and the reason that Pelosi is attempting to meddle in the Senate's role in trying an impeached president is that there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime and certainly no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.

It is debatable whether the House has actually impeached Trump because Pelosi has failed to deliver the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. If she persists, this election year sham will likely backfire on Democrats. Voters are not likely to take kindly to House Democrats attempt to smear the president by delaying the Senate trial to which he is Constitutionally entitled.

This should be a criminal case and the defendants should include Adam Schiff and Obama leftovers in the Justice Department who fabricated evidence and used a Clinton-financed opposition report that resulted in FISA wiretaps and led to the Mueller witch hunt.

I am not now, nor will I ever be a Trump fan, but Democrats' refusal to accept the results of a fair and legal election, their misuse of public funds, their abuse of power, and their criminal acts aimed at unseating a duly elected president will be remembered as a very dark and chilling period of American history for generations to come.

I wasn’t saying lying is an impeachable offense, but high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty vague, so possibly.

Due process is in a criminal court. Like I said earlier impeachment is closest to the grand jury where the defendant doesn’t get to present a defense.

Trump has been impeached and Pelosi has broken custom. That’s it. She’s playing politics to muddy up the news cycle. She’ll drop the Articles of Impeachment on the Senate’s doorstep at an inopportune time. I could see her hold them as late as June.

I see her break of custom much the way McConnell held Obama’s Supreme Court pick. Democrats were arms in the air over that, but he just broke custom. Elections have consequences and politicians are always finding an angle to help their party and their cause.

IG report told the FBI was fast and loose with FISA warrants. Is that news? Or is it now suddenly bad because they went after Trump associates?
A few scoldings and that’s all that will happen. FBI is already back in business. If the report had anything in it that would stick, Barr wouldn’t have asked Durham to start a new investigation the next day to keep the President happy.

That duly elected president argument is tired. Nixon and Clinton were duly elected (Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination). They did something from the time they were elected to justify the impeachment process. We don’t elect kings that aren’t checked. Democrats don’t want that; Republicans don’t want that.

Dark time? Give me a break. It’s business as usual here in the USA. Trump was impeached and the needle didn’t move despite one side saying the economy would crash. He was elected while one side the world would be over.

Too many citizens listening to these rebel rousers and not stepping out of the vacuum.

Cardfan1 Wrote:If you listen to one politician, you are being lied too. You sound like a huge Trump supporter. He lies constantly.

This isn’t a criminal court. Trump or any other president is basically getting fired from his job; not going to jail, so the HOR doesn’t have to prove a crime just the fact that what he is doing isn’t congruent with the Constitution.

Timeline, motive, and witnesses is enough to start the process and that’s what we are in...the beginning of a case. If we were to loosely compare this to a criminal case, I see impeachment as a grand jury that sees enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

Your last point is where is what I think is laughable about both sides today. Both dismiss their man’s exploits while “clutching their pearls” over the other. The comparisons between the two are dumbfounding.

You mean THE timeline, or the DNC timeline? :biglmao:

But I am so happy to see you declare yourself so clearly. There is something 'huge' here to consider, and it is the fact that you seem get your opinions handed to you from politicians. In your case Democrats. Rather than to take your cues from current events. I mean, your whole argument here has been Democrat talking points right down the line. On the one hand you say it is unwise to listen to politicians, while on the other you parrot the Dem Party narrative verbatim.

Try to focus here. Bill Clinton was charged with a crime. Found guilty of that crime by the FEDERAL Judge he lied to. Was fined. And finally disgraced AND Disbarred.

Trump has by comparison been gossiped about, end of story. They tried to run the exact same scam against Trump, pretend witnesses and all, that they ran unsuccessfully on Brett Kavanaugh. It flopped, AGAIN---and that's why Pelosi decided to hold the sham impeachment as an arrow in her 2020 campaign quiver. She'll hold it while the rabid chipmunks grind out more impossible political sausage in hopes something will finally stick.

Sitting at the polar extremes, it seems both of us find the whole affair laughable but frankly, being on the side of that which is truthful seems far more rewarding.

TheRealThing Wrote:You mean THE timeline, or the DNC timeline? :biglmao:

But I am so happy to see you declare yourself so clearly. There is something 'huge' here to consider, and it is the fact that you seem get your opinions handed to you from politicians. In your case Democrats. Rather than to take your cues from current events. I mean, your whole argument here has been Democrat talking points right down the line. On the one hand you say it is unwise to listen to politicians, while on the other you parrot the Dem Party narrative verbatim.

Try to focus here. Bill Clinton was charged with a crime. Found guilty of that crime by the FEDERAL Judge he lied to. Was fined. And finally disgraced AND Disbarred.

Trump has by comparison been gossiped about, end of story. They tried to run the exact same scam against Trump, pretend witnesses and all, that they ran unsuccessfully on Brett Kavanaugh. It flopped, AGAIN---and that's why Pelosi decided to hold the sham impeachment as an arrow in her 2020 campaign quiver. She'll hold it while the rabid chipmunks grind out more impossible political sausage in hopes something will finally stick.

Sitting at the polar extremes, it seems both of us find the whole affair laughable but frankly, being on the side of that which is truthful seems far more rewarding.

I wasn’t disputing Clinton’s guilt nor his post-impeachment legal woes. I can’t imagine Trump will have any of those over this situation.

I basically said the same thing you said about Pelosi in my last post without calling half the voters of this country rabid chipmunks, which is a prime example of what I’ve said. Nothing can be discussed without drawing hard lines.

You guys are complaining about the partisanship of the HOR up to this point. Does the Senate’s partisanship bother you? Would you be up for 12 nonpartisan Senators to make this decision on whether to remove the president?

Cardfan1 Wrote:I wasn’t saying lying is an impeachable offense, but high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty vague, so possibly.

Due process is in a criminal court. Like I said earlier impeachment is closest to the grand jury where the defendant doesn’t get to present a defense.

Trump has been impeached and Pelosi has broken custom. That’s it. She’s playing politics to muddy up the news cycle. She’ll drop the Articles of Impeachment on the Senate’s doorstep at an inopportune time. I could see her hold them as late as June.

I see her break of custom much the way McConnell held Obama’s Supreme Court pick. Democrats were arms in the air over that, but he just broke custom. Elections have consequences and politicians are always finding an angle to help their party and their cause.

IG report told the FBI was fast and loose with FISA warrants. Is that news? Or is it now suddenly bad because they went after Trump associates?
A few scoldings and that’s all that will happen. FBI is already back in business. If the report had anything in it that would stick, Barr wouldn’t have asked Durham to start a new investigation the next day to keep the President happy.

That duly elected president argument is tired. Nixon and Clinton were duly elected (Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination). They did something from the time they were elected to justify the impeachment process. We don’t elect kings that aren’t checked. Democrats don’t want that; Republicans don’t want that.

Dark time? Give me a break. It’s business as usual here in the USA. Trump was impeached and the needle didn’t move despite one side saying the economy would crash. He was elected while one side the world would be over.

Too many citizens listening to these rebel rousers and not stepping out of the vacuum.

You have a very poor understanding of American history and Constitutional law.

Americans' right to due process under the law is not restricted to criminal courts and U.S. presidents do not lose their Constitutional right to due process when they are elected to office. The framers of the Constitution did not include the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" by accident. They never expected that impeachment of a sitting president would be used strictly as a political ploy to overturn the results of an election in the absence of the commission of a serious criminal offense that undermined the legitimacy of our system of government.

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution state that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Your assertion that our right to due process applies only to criminal prosecutions is just flat out wrong.

You seem to be confusing the impeachment process, by which an individual is removed from an elected office or the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors with a recall process, by which some states may require elected officials to face new elections based on what can be purely political reasons.

Impeaching a president of the United States is not business as usual. Attempts to overthrow democratically elected presidents is business as usual in banana republics, which is what Democrats like you seem determined to have this nation become.

At least thanks to our two major political parties, we have no shortage of illegal immigrants in this country who have experience participating in banana republics.

Cardfan1 Wrote:I wasn’t disputing Clinton’s guilt nor his post-impeachment legal woes. I can’t imagine Trump will have any of those over this situation.

I basically said the same thing you said about Pelosi in my last post without calling half the voters of this country rabid chipmunks, which is a prime example of what I’ve said. Nothing can be discussed without drawing hard lines.

You guys are complaining about the partisanship of the HOR up to this point. Does the Senate’s partisanship bother you? Would you be up for 12 nonpartisan Senators to make this decision on whether to remove the president?

Oh you're ringing up the debate points alright. They're not applicable to this discussion so far, but that is the way when trying to use somebody else's talking points as your own in fluid conversation.

Rabid chipmunks are my connotation which best describes the liberal staffers which do the Dem's deepstate dirty work; government employees who burn up US tax dollars in nefarious quests at the behest of Democrats. Not quite half the voting public, at least not yet.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:You have a very poor understanding of American history and Constitutional law.

Americans' right to due process under the law is not restricted to criminal courts and U.S. presidents do not lose their Constitutional right to due process when they are elected to office. The framers of the Constitution did not include the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" by accident. They never expected that impeachment of a sitting president would be used strictly as a political ploy to overturn the results of an election in the absence of the commission of a serious criminal offense that undermined the legitimacy of our system of government.

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution state that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Your assertion that our right to due process applies only to criminal prosecutions is just flat out wrong.

You seem to be confusing the impeachment process, by which an individual is removed from an elected office or the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors with a recall process, by which some states may require elected officials to face new elections based on what can be purely political reasons.

Impeaching a president of the United States is not business as usual. Attempts to overthrow democratically elected presidents is business as usual in banana republics, which is what Democrats like you seem determined to have this nation become.

At least thanks to our two major political parties, we have no shortage of illegal immigrants in this country who have experience participating in banana republics.

I am not confusing the impeachment process with anything. You may need to do a little more research. The constitution does not provide the president with due process during impeachment and the house makes all the rules.

Now if the president is to get due process it will happen during his trial in the Senate.

Cardfan1 Wrote:I am not confusing the impeachment process with anything. You may need to do a little more research. The constitution does not provide the president with due process during impeachment and the house makes all the rules.

Now if the president is to get due process it will happen during his trial in the Senate.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you were clearly wrong in your assertion that due process only applies to criminal prosecutions. By rigging the impeachment process in the House of Representatives and purposefully excluding exculpatory evidence and testimony, Democrats have made it easy for the Senate to acquit Trump. That is, if Pelosi ever actually presents the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial.

Your posts in this thread so far have consisted of poorly paraphrased Democrat talking points that are rife with misinformation.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Whether you want to admit it or not, you were clearly wrong in your assertion that due process only applies to criminal prosecutions. By rigging the impeachment process in the House of Representatives and purposefully excluding exculpatory evidence and testimony, Democrats have made it easy for the Senate to acquit Trump. That is, if Pelosi ever actually presents the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial.

Your posts in this thread so far have consisted of poorly paraphrased Democrat talking points that are rife with misinformation.

I won’t admit I’m wrong. I was certain I was right then I used my Google machine to back it up. Didn’t take long to find impeachment doesn’t require due process.

The House has sole power to impeach.
The Senate has sole power for trial.

Anyway due process comes in when you are losing life, liberty, or property, and Trump will not lose any of those unless you believe he owns the office of the President.

^^ Liberals are more than willing to run over their own conscience, traditional values and the facts to push social justice and liberalism. In this, the impeachment and their attempts to oust Justice Kavanaugh are mirror images. IMHO, voters should be equally outraged with both.

I heard Senator Ted Cruz today speaking on the impeachment. No surprise, his timeline and assessment of the facts were very impressive. But he revealed something about the FBI employee who altered an email to get the FISA court to okeydoke the warrant used to spy on the Trump campaign. Because Carter Paige was known to be talking to "sketchy" Russians, the FBI sent a letter to the CIA asking them if Paige was a source for them. The CIA gets back with the FBI email stating simply, yes he is. (Which fact BTW has a very mitigating influence as to whether speaking to sketchy Russians was questionable in the first place, right?)

Well in order to propagate their narrative, or conspiracy or whatever, an FBI senior lawyer takes said CIA email and changes it. Typing in words to the effect, "no Paige is not our source.) This is what was submitted to the FISA and Cruz is jumping up and down about it.

Any trial that may take place in the Senate, out from under the gavels of Schiff and Nadler, will expose more BS than a tornado over a stockyard in Texas.

Cardfan1 Wrote:I won’t admit I’m wrong. I was certain I was right then I used my Google machine to back it up. Didn’t take long to find impeachment doesn’t require due process.

The House has sole power to impeach.
The Senate has sole power for trial.

Anyway due process comes in when you are losing life, liberty, or property, and Trump will not lose any of those unless you believe he owns the office of the President.

Ummm. Does due process have anything to do with being charged falsely (framed) with high crime and misdemeanor?

TheRealThing Wrote:Ummm. Does due process have anything to do with being charged falsely (framed) with high crime and misdemeanor?

If it does that will happen in the Senate trial.

Do you believe the president was framed on the 2 charges that were brought against him: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

The president seemed to be participating in both instances. In some cases speaking or tweeting proudly about the very issues.

Interestingly enough emails released today from the OMB show that the Ukrainian aid was frozen on the advice of the administration just 90 minutes after the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

Cardfan1 Wrote:If it does that will happen in the Senate trial.

Do you believe the president was framed on the 2 charges that were brought against him: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?

The president seemed to be participating in both instances. In some cases speaking or tweeting proudly about the very issues.

Interestingly enough emails released today from the OMB show that the Ukrainian aid was frozen on the advice of the administration just 90 minutes after the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

LOL well, like the song says, "she can't take you anyway you don't already know how to go." That would be the left, who want desperately to buy into this impeachment just because they have such strong FEELINGS. Like the woman I saw wailing n-o-o-o-h in the streets over and over upon hearing that Trump had won. But you're wrong, under our system of law people cannot be formally charged with a crime devoid of any evidence or fact witness. You said earlier that you viewed the impeachment as a grand jury. Grand juries don't indict on thin air, there has to be a crime committed and someone has to have been wronged. The left has zero evidence of either.

Now, I'm not saying they didn't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't have under our system of law and like Hoot said, this is no banana republic.

Yes without equivocation, I believe the President was framed on the 2 articles of impeachment.

The Obama administration featured no less than 29 scandals.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washi...ide-them-1

In those days all we heard from Dems and media was these things had not met the courtroom level standard of truth. No proof; over and over ad nauseum. Funny isn't it? To oust a US Republican President, unsupported allegations are quite enough thank you very much. But to get anybody in the Obama admin to even show up for questioning, much less answer up for so much as one of those scandals? Nooo. That would have required irrefutable proof. :closeenough:

TheRealThing Wrote:LOL well, like the song says, "she can't take you anyway you don't already know how to go." That would be the left, who want desperately to buy into this impeachment just because they have such strong FEELINGS. Like the woman I saw wailing n-o-o-o-h in the streets over and over upon hearing that Trump had won. But you're wrong, under our system of law people cannot be formally charged with a crime devoid of any evidence or fact witness. You said earlier that you viewed the impeachment as a grand jury. Grand juries don't indict on thin air, there has to be a crime committed and someone has to have been wronged. The left has zero evidence of either.

Now, I'm not saying they didn't do it. I'm saying they shouldn't have under our system of law and like Hoot said, this is no banana republic.

Yes without equivocation, I believe the President was framed on the 2 articles of impeachment.

Histrionics know no political boundary.
I get a kick out of all the doomsday prognosticators.

Best comparison is grand jury; it’s not exact.

Framed?! Maybe the case is weak or circumstantial, but framed?

The President was very present in the conversations concerning this Ukraine scandal, and when he wasn’t Mr. Giuliani was acting on his behalf.

Not sure if framed will ever sell.

Cardfan1 Wrote:Histrionics know no political boundary.
I get a kick out of all the doomsday prognosticators.

Best comparison is grand jury; it’s not exact.

Framed?! Maybe the case is weak or circumstantial, but framed?

The President was very present in the conversations concerning this Ukraine scandal, and when he wasn’t Mr. Giuliani was acting on his behalf.

Not sure if framed will ever sell.

On matters of doomsday prognostication I will take my cues from the Lord of Creation. This is His world, and we are His creation. As such we are just as much subject to the outcome He has so clearly laid out in Scripture, as this universe is subject to the laws of nature.

Oh he is being framed alright. Trump's persecutor/prosecutor Adam Schiff has been overtaken in so many lies that we don't even have to wait for history's judgment on the matter. It's patently self evident and the obvious outcome is not worth scrapping with you about. Open your eyes and have a Merry Christmas.

TheRealThing Wrote:On matters of doomsday prognostication I will take my cues from the Lord of Creation. This is His world, and we are His creation. As such we are just as much subject to the outcome He has so clearly laid out in Scripture, as this universe is subject to the laws of nature.

Oh he is being framed alright. Trump's persecutor/prosecutor Adam Schiff has been overtaken in so many lies that we don't even have to wait for history's judgment on the matter. It's patently self evident and the obvious outcome is not worth scrapping with you about. Open your eyes and have a Merry Christmas.

You know I’m not even that impressed with the Schiff-led investigation. He didn’t really do anything after the whistleblower report dropped in his lap besides call the other people on the line to testify, use information published by the media through FOIA requests, and confirm the timeline through the taped interviews of Giuliani and other Trump representatives on cable news.

Cardfan1 Wrote:You know I’m not even that impressed with the Schiff-led investigation. He didn’t really do anything after the whistleblower report dropped in his lap besides call the other people on the line to testify, use information published by the media through FOIA requests, and confirm the timeline through the taped interviews of Giuliani and other Trump representatives on cable news.

The people wanting to see MR Trump get into trouble are so inclined because they have contempt for the right, the traditional conservative values of our US heritage in other words. It's incredible to me to think the left expects conservatives to just lay down and get out of the way for them. Like I said, IF Republicans hadn't bum rushed out of the Congress last time around, Dems wouldn't have sailed into the House majority in the first place. And we see what they did with their newly regained power.

As in the case of the founders, service to this nation on the part of our elected officials is the stuff of love of country and the willingness of self sacrifice. Not of daisies and snowflakes who get their little delicate feelings mashed. But I have no worries whatever that should this fiasco spill onto the floor of the Senate, the timelines will be totally sorted out. :Thumbs: