[Cardfan1]

LOL, typical revisionist liberal doublespeak. You're just so impressed with your own ideas. Not to worry, I'm sure McConnell is out there hanging on every word you type. Me not so much.

“Revisionist Liberal Doublespeak?”
1. My position has been solid on what the Constitution grants both houses.
2. I may be liberal to you, but not in the scheme of political thought.
3. Per the Constitution, Senator McConnell doesn’t have to listen to me, or anyone else, if he can get his caucus to vote with him.

Since the House impeachment is over and we are on to the Senate trial... in your opinion, what should the Senate do once they receive the articles of impeachment from Speaker Pelosi?

Should they vote immediately?
Hold a trial with the evidence presented in the articles?
Hold a trial with witnesses from both sides?

[TheRealThing]

“Revisionist Liberal Doublespeak?”
1. My position has been solid on what the Constitution grants both houses.
2. I may be liberal to you, but not in the scheme of political thought.
3. Per the Constitution, Senator McConnell doesn’t have to listen to me, or anyone else, if he can get his caucus to vote with him.

Since the House impeachment is over and we are on to the Senate trial... in your opinion, what should the Senate do once they receive the articles of impeachment from Speaker Pelosi?

Should they vote immediately?
Hold a trial with the evidence presented in the articles?
Hold a trial with witnesses from both sides?

Oh heck I don't know, it's been like 6 or 8 months since Mitch has checked in with me. And you're 100% wrong. Precedent establishes procedure in the minds of reasonable men in these matters. The House Dems and of course yourself, not being among any sort of assemblage of reasonable men.

[Cardfan1]

Oh heck I don't know, it's been like 6 or 8 months since Mitch has checked in with me. And you're 100% wrong. Precedent establishes procedure in the minds of reasonable men in these matters. The House Dems and of course yourself, not being among any sort of assemblage of reasonable men.

What am I wrong about? The Senate must have a trial... ok.
What do you think it should look like?

They really don’t have to per the constitution. They could acquit the President without reading the evidence if Senator McConnell chooses.

[TheRealThing]

What am I wrong about? The Senate must have a trial... ok.
What do you think it should look like?

They really don’t have to per the constitution. They could acquit the President without reading the evidence if Senator McConnell chooses.

No now Cardfan their minds don't work like yours. McConnell has stuck to his guns on the matter of the Senate 60 rule for example. His intent is to preserve the institution of the Senate, not destroy it. And I freely admit that in my exasperation with rabid Dems, I have been critical of him for same. Maybe he's right.

But back in the days of the Clinton Impeachment for example when the Congress was populated by reasonable men, history had already established precedence on the matter. And the Congress (all except for the CBC and certain others) dutifully lined up in dignified fashion to conform to that precedent. That was then. Now that the people have inexplicably chosen once again to send in the clowns, where dignity once reigned it's a full-on no holds barred nuclear food fight. And you're one of their defenders. But in that McConnell and others are familiar with and loyal to our founding principles, they refuse to follow the Democrat model of just chucking everything they don't like in the toilet. BTW, I would like to thank you for once again pointing out your party's glaring flaws with such proficiency. Republicans adhere to the US Constitution, Democrats are shallow creatures who live for today and care not for heritage or principle. Or the likely future of the US for that matter.

[Cardfan1]

No now Cardfan their minds don't work like yours. McConnell has stuck to his guns on the matter of the Senate 60 rule for example. His intent is to preserve the institution of the Senate, not destroy it. And I freely admit that in my exasperation with rabid Dems, I have been critical of him for same. Maybe he's right.

But back in the days of the Clinton Impeachment for example when the Congress was populated by reasonable men, history had already established precedence on the matter. And the Congress (all except for the CBC and certain others) dutifully lined up in dignified fashion to conform to that precedent. That was then. Now that the people have inexplicably chosen once again to send in the clowns, where dignity once reigned it's a full-on no holds barred nuclear food fight. And you're one of their defenders. But in that McConnell and others are familiar with and loyal to our founding principles, they refuse to follow the Democrat model of just chucking everything they don't like in the toilet. BTW, I would like to thank you for once again pointing out your party's glaring flaws with such proficiency. Republicans adhere to the US Constitution, Democrats are shallow creatures who live for today and care not for heritage or principle. Or the likely future of the US for that matter.

I just provided some facts to your opinions of how impeachment should proceed.
I agree the process of the Clinton Impeachment and Trial seemed fair and balanced with both sides (legislative and executive) participating. They actually had very little precedent to work with, because the Impeachment and trial of President Johnson was an absolute mess with corruption at its worst.
So now there is an example of what a Impeachment trial should look like. I am interested to see what the Senate Majority Leader will do.

"Republicans adhere to the US Constitution" really? You are gonna hang your hat on all Republicans adhere to the Constitution?

[TheRealThing]

I just provided some facts to your opinions of how impeachment should proceed.
I agree the process of the Clinton Impeachment and Trial seemed fair and balanced with both sides (legislative and executive) participating. They actually had very little precedent to work with, because the Impeachment and trial of President Johnson was an absolute mess with corruption at its worst.
So now there is an example of what a Impeachment trial should look like. I am interested to see what the Senate Majority Leader will do.

"Republicans adhere to the US Constitution" really? You are gonna hang your hat on all Republicans adhere to the Constitution?

The bolded; I tossed that around for a few seconds, considering how adamant I might state my answer. Which of course is absolutely yes. But it is amazing how libs try to couch things in a would-be gesture of capitulation, without actually admitting the obvious. But by way of irony---

"On this day in HISTORY," 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommends that America’s 37th president, Richard M. Nixon, be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment proceedings resulted from a series of political scandals involving the Nixon administration that came to be collectively known as Watergate."

The Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment nearly mirrored each other procedurally. While you're downplaying or making huge omissions from a very replete historical record on impeachments, Republicans have laid out the precedential record for all to see. I mean given this whole farce is nothing more than the Dem's making good on their vows of retaliation for the Clinton impeachment, I'd hate to think we'd have them roll around MUCH more frequently than they already have. Just considering the events of modern times, the third time was the charm where it came to weaponizing the impeachment process as things stand. Suffice it to say that we have PLENTY of procedural ground on which to base this sham impeachment. The only reason the Dems are calling for and you're glomming onto, the new rules bandwagon is because there is absolutely zero evidence that the President did the first thing wrong, much less commit any sort of an impeachable offense. There has to be a world of laxity here in the La-La universe for this Dem's only impeachment to be successful.

Now, I usually do not fail to call out the RIMO's when they deserve it. People like Jeff Flakey (gone) and Lisa Murkowski and all too often, Susan Collins and others, for their lack of moral integrity. But this is categorical, if not for the Republicans this nation would be in far worse sted than at present. Republicans far more closely adhere to our national heritage, the Constitution and our founding traditionally conservative values than do the Dems. That fact is beyond debate.







.

[Cardfan1]

The bolded; I tossed that around for a few seconds, considering how adamant I might state my answer. Which of course is absolutely yes. But it is amazing how libs try to couch things in a would-be gesture of capitulation, without actually admitting the obvious. But by way of irony---

"On this day in HISTORY," 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommends that America’s 37th president, Richard M. Nixon, be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment proceedings resulted from a series of political scandals involving the Nixon administration that came to be collectively known as Watergate."

The Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment nearly mirrored each other procedurally. While you're downplaying or making huge omissions from a very replete historical record on impeachments, Republicans have laid out the precedential record for all to see. I mean given this whole farce is nothing more than the Dem's making good on their vows of retaliation for the Clinton impeachment, I'd hate to think we'd have them roll around MUCH more frequently than they already have. Just considering the events of modern times, the third time was the charm where it came to weaponizing the impeachment process as things stand. Suffice it to say that we have PLENTY of procedural ground on which to base this sham impeachment. The only reason the Dems are calling for and you're glomming onto, the new rules bandwagon is because there is absolutely zero evidence that the President did the first thing wrong, much less commit any sort of an impeachable offense. There has to be a world of laxity here in the La-La universe for this Dem's only impeachment to be successful.

Now, I usually do not fail to call out the RIMO's when they deserve it. People like Jeff Flakey (gone) and Lisa Murkowski and all too often, Susan Collins and others, for their lack of moral integrity. But this is categorical, if not for the Republicans this nation would be in far worse sted than at present. Republicans far more closely adhere to our national heritage, the Constitution and our founding traditionally conservative values than do the Dems. That fact is beyond debate.
.

Extremely ironic considering Nixon was a Republican and you said ALL republicans adhere to the Constitution.

Since you brought it up, I reviewed the Nixon Impeachment. The initial Impeachment inquiry into Nixon was down partisan lines. It wasn't until Nixon obstructed Congress and the Supreme Court had to step in that he started to lose Republican followers in Congress. Even at that only a 7 of 17 Republicans peeled off and voted with the 21 Democrats on the Judiciary committee on Article II (abuse of power).

Impeachment has been stranger than fiction here in the good old USA. The Nixon impeachment procedures developed in part by a young Hillary Clinton were used 26 years later on her husband. Another young lawyer, Bill Weld, whose investigations established the grounds of what is impeachable is running as a Republican in 2020. Who knew you were such fans of their work?

In all honesty, the Nixon/Trump impeachment accusations look very similar with the exception of who was asked to participate in the scandal. Nixon used Americans while Trump used foreign nationals. I thought he said he was going to keep jobs in America?

This nation has been built and formed by both political parties and at times each have been on the right side and wrong side of history. Neither has the corner on the market of righteousness.

[TheRealThing]

Extremely ironic considering Nixon was a Republican and you said ALL republicans adhere to the Constitution.

Since you brought it up, I reviewed the Nixon Impeachment. The initial Impeachment inquiry into Nixon was down partisan lines. It wasn't until Nixon obstructed Congress and the Supreme Court had to step in that he started to lose Republican followers in Congress. Even at that only a 7 of 17 Republicans peeled off and voted with the 21 Democrats on the Judiciary committee on Article II (abuse of power).

Impeachment has been stranger than fiction here in the good old USA. The Nixon impeachment procedures developed in part by a young Hillary Clinton were used 26 years later on her husband. Another young lawyer, Bill Weld, whose investigations established the grounds of what is impeachable is running as a Republican in 2020. Who knew you were such fans of their work?

In all honesty, the Nixon/Trump impeachment accusations look very similar with the exception of who was asked to participate in the scandal. Nixon used Americans while Trump used foreign nationals. I thought he said he was going to keep jobs in America?

This nation has been built and formed by both political parties and at times each have been on the right side and wrong side of history. Neither has the corner on the market of righteousness.

LOL, you just can't help it can you? I said Republicans far more closely adhere to the constitution. Never said all.

Of course the Nixon impeachment initially went down party lines. At the outset all it was, was eavesdropping. The lying and cover-up, (to a viable and honorable acting intel community and the congressional investigative effort) is what got them. Notwithstanding, MR Nixon et-al were extended full rights to council, discovery, and a full defense from the get-go. These were and are being denied the President, and Mitch will end the circus which is what rabid libs are so tore up about. So no, the two impeachments look nothing alike. And for the nth time, the Constitution AND the foreign policy records of his 44 predecessors visit the power to conduct foreign policy in the best interests of this nation to President Trump's hands.Trump has in no way violated that tradition.

As to Hill and Bill, Google is a wonderful ally is it not? Doesn't have the first thing to do with this conversation. But does belie your willingness to accept any lie told about the President. And of course the fact that if a Dem says it, even if the evidence take one in an entirely different direction, you're still fine with it.

Finally since the days of JFK, (we'd have a nuclear Cuba to deal with right now if your ilk had anything to do with the way he handled that) I will put the record of the Republicans up against your side's record of special interest goofiness with pride. But let's at least be honest about the Dems and Republicans. Whatever Dems were in 1960, they became something else upon LBJ's unfortunate appointment. You guys bear no faint similarity to the Democrat part of my youth. Unfortunately it's true, a little yeast will cause the whole lump to rise, and the same cancer which has the Dem side of the conference at stage 4 has begun it's relentless encroachment on the Republicans too. However, there are still enough constitution defenders lurking amongst them so as to ensure my continued vote.

[Cardfan1]

LOL, you just can't help it can you? I said Republicans far more closely adhere to the constitution. Never said all.

Of course the Nixon impeachment initially went down party lines. At the outset all it was, was eavesdropping. The lying and cover-up, (to a viable and honorable acting intel community and the congressional investigative effort) is what got them. Notwithstanding, MR Nixon et-al were extended full rights to council, discovery, and a full defense from the get-go. These were and are being denied the President, and Mitch will end the circus which is what rabid libs are so tore up about. So no, the two impeachments look nothing alike. And for the nth time, the Constitution AND the foreign policy records of his 44 predecessors visit the power to conduct foreign policy in the best interests of this nation to President Trump's hands.Trump has in no way violated that tradition.

As to Hill and Bill, Google is a wonderful ally is it not? Doesn't have the first thing to do with this conversation. But does belie your willingness to accept any lie told about the President. And of course the fact that if a Dem says it, even if the evidence take one in an entirely different direction, you're still fine with it.

Finally since the days of JFK, (we'd have a nuclear Cuba to deal with right now if your ilk had anything to do with the way he handled that) I will put the record of the Republicans up against your side's record of special interest goofiness with pride. But let's at least be honest about the Dems and Republicans. Whatever Dems were in 1960, they became something else upon LBJ's unfortunate appointment. You guys bear no faint similarity to the Democrat part of my youth. Unfortunately it's true, a little yeast will cause the whole lump to rise, and the same cancer which has the Dem side of the conference at stage 4 has begun it's relentless encroachment on the Republicans too. However, there are still enough constitution defenders lurking amongst them so as to ensure my continued vote.

So what does Mitch ending the circus mean?

Actually, I said the accusations are similar. You are correct the Trump impeachment is moving along faster, whereas the Clinton and Nixon impeachments were much slower investigations. I imagine that can be contributed to politics, elections, and the speed of today's information cycle.

In the emails released just yesterday, govt officials (political and merit) felt the president was in violation of the law by withholding the aid to Ukraine , and linking the decisions directly to the president. The longer this goes the more drip, drip, drip information we will receive.

That foreign policy argument is blurry, because the executive branch is required to follow the spending requirements established by Congress. Several presidents have had their foreign policy decisions questioned and even investigated by Congress.

I was just amused that the president's supporters are clamoring Hillary Clinton's impeachment precedents.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't really fit in the box you are trying to stick me in, but continue on since it's the way in America these days. Little discussion about substance more about partisan lines.

[TheRealThing]

So what does Mitch ending the circus mean?

Actually, I said the accusations are similar. You are correct the Trump impeachment is moving along faster, whereas the Clinton and Nixon impeachments were much slower investigations. I imagine that can be contributed to politics, elections, and the speed of today's information cycle.

In the emails released just yesterday, govt officials (political and merit) felt the president was in violation of the law by withholding the aid to Ukraine , and linking the decisions directly to the president. The longer this goes the more drip, drip, drip information we will receive.

That foreign policy argument is blurry, because the executive branch is required to follow the spending requirements established by Congress. Several presidents have had their foreign policy decisions questioned and even investigated by Congress.

I was just amused that the president's supporters are clamoring Hillary Clinton's impeachment precedents.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't really fit in the box you are trying to stick me in, but continue on since it's the way in America these days. Little discussion about substance more about partisan lines.

First line answer is abundantly self evident.

No actually in typically deceptive terms, Dems are attempting to give their own sham impeachment the appearance of validity by using certain general facets of the Nixon impeachment as a backdrop. Using that blank canvas they've used results from the conspiracy theory contrived Schiff Show to paint the most damning picture against the President that they could. Problems, none of the charges are true, no fact witnesses.

Didn't say a word about the speed at which the shenanigans have been accomplished in the post you referenced. But the info cycle be darned, the speed was due to the fact that Schiff and Nadler were willing to steamroll due process.

As to your referenced governmental officials, it is no harder to get any number of well placed liberals in government to oppose this duly elected President on matters that might well lead to tremendous harm befalling the US, than it has been to find liberal judges willing to block this President's efforts on immigration and ultimately border security. They'll say anything.

No the foreign policy argument isn't blurry at all. If the Executive had to check with those bozos every time a crisis blew up, or even on matters that were not urgent, the Congress would in effect have total rule as 2/3 of the federal government would be under their control. It don't work that way in the United States.

Don't try to fly that 'little substance' jab by me. You and your's have less than nothing to support the whole shameful ordeal. :please:

[Cardfan1]

First line answer is abundantly self evident.

No actually in typically deceptive terms, Dems are attempting to give their own sham impeachment the appearance of validity by using certain general facets of the Nixon impeachment as a backdrop. Using that blank canvas they've used results from the conspiracy theory contrived Schiff Show to paint the most damning picture against the President that they could. Problems, none of the charges are true, no fact witnesses.

Didn't say a word about the speed at which the shenanigans have been accomplished in the post you referenced. But the info cycle be darned, the speed was due to the fact that Schiff and Nadler were willing to steamroll due process.

As to your referenced governmental officials, it is no harder to get any number of well placed liberals in government to oppose this duly elected President on matters that might well lead to tremendous harm befalling the US, than it has been to find liberal judges willing to block this President's efforts on immigration and ultimately border security. They'll say anything.

No the foreign policy argument isn't blurry at all. If the Executive had to check with those bozos every time a crisis blew up, or even on matters that were not urgent, the Congress would in effect have total rule as 2/3 of the federal government would be under their control. It don't work that way in the United States.

Don't try to fly that 'little substance' jab by me. You and your's have less than nothing to support the whole shameful ordeal. :please:

Sorry, I’m slow. You keep saying Senator McConnell is going to right the ship, but what is that?

Might want to review those emails I’m talking about. Most were from political appointees.

Congress appropriated funds and the executive branch has to pay those funds by a certain point in this case. That is the crux here.

It’s evident the president held up the money. Many have already testified he did it to open an investigation on Hunter Biden. I think Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulvaney could corroborate that if they are called as witnesses in the Senate trial.

[TheRealThing]

Sorry, I’m slow. You keep saying Senator McConnell is going to right the ship, but what is that?

Might want to review those emails I’m talking about. Most were from political appointees.

Congress appropriated funds and the executive branch has to pay those funds by a certain point in this case. That is the crux here.

It’s evident the president held up the money. Many have already testified he did it to open an investigation on Hunter Biden. I think Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulvaney could corroborate that if they are called as witnesses in the Senate trial.

Yeah well, such is life when one bases his life on issues of social justice. You can run over anything or any law if you just feel deeply enough. :biggrin: But in the real world the Executive cannot be compelled to comply with you guy's perpetual fishing trip. Laws exist for the good of the land. Now I know that annoying fact sort of rains on the impeachment parade, but so be it.

As far as your being slow, you are actually rather quick about running around any precedent in order to press home impeachment. Like oh, I don't know, due process for example? Small thing I know in the minds of libs dying a slow and excruciating 8 year long death resultant of the Trump Era. That was the will of the people and the left ought to do what their evil step mommy said Trump supporters ought to do should she win. Accept it.

Not to worry. Mike Pence is waiting in the wings for the next 8.

[Cardfan1]

Yeah well, such is life when one bases his life on issues of social justice. You can run over anything or any law if you just feel deeply enough. :biggrin: But in the real world the Executive cannot be compelled to comply with you guy's perpetual fishing trip. Laws exist for the good of the land. Now I know that annoying fact sort of rains on the impeachment parade, but so be it.

As far as your being slow, you are actually rather quick about running around any precedent in order to press home impeachment. Like oh, I don't know, due process for example? Small thing I know in the minds of libs dying a slow and excruciating 8 year long death resultant of the Trump Era. That was the will of the people and the left ought to do what their evil step mommy said Trump supporters ought to do should she win. Accept it.

Not to worry. Mike Pence is waiting in the wings for the next 8.

Courts will eventually force the Executive to comply with the “fishing trips” both Nixon and Clinton were compelled.

Are we still on impeachment due process that is not guaranteed by the Constitution?

Sidestepping the facts of this scandal with liberal insults doesn’t really affect me. As I said earlier I don’t fit in the box you are trying to put me in, so you are wasting your time on that.

Trump held the aid that is a fact now. If fact witnesses testify that it was held up to open an investigation into Trump’s political opponent should he then be removed?

In today’s political world I can’t see Pence succeeding 8 years of President Trump. If Trump wins in November I worry about the pendulum swing back to an extremely left candidate. Remember 8 years of Obama got us Trump. Obama really wasn’t that liberal on the scope of things.

[TheRealThing]

Courts will eventually force the Executive to comply with the “fishing trips” both Nixon and Clinton were compelled.

Are we still on impeachment due process that is not guaranteed by the Constitution?

Sidestepping the facts of this scandal with liberal insults doesn’t really affect me. As I said earlier I don’t fit in the box you are trying to put me in, so you are wasting your time on that.

Trump held the aid that is a fact now. If fact witnesses testify that it was held up to open an investigation into Trump’s political opponent should he then be removed?

In today’s political world I can’t see Pence succeeding 8 years of President Trump. If Trump wins in November I worry about the pendulum swing back to an extremely left candidate. Remember 8 years of Obama got us Trump. Obama really wasn’t that liberal on the scope of things.

He can legally hold aid till the hot spot freezes if he wants to. Past that you've yet to post a single fact to sidestep so far as I am aware. Why don't you try that first before you leap over to the your victory dance?

Obama was the cannon ball through the dike that started today's exponential breach of madness. I predicted the whole mess but thanks for the tip anyway.

[Cardfan1]

Sorry, you’re wrong.

“Impoundment Control Act, says that once Congress appropriates funds — like the Ukraine assistance — and the president signs the relevant spending bill, the executive branch must spend those funds. A president cannot simply ignore Congress’s direction, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing that instruction might be. If funds are withheld or shifted elsewhere, this cannot be done in secret, and Congress must approve.”

Yep, the answer to Obama was the Tea Party and Trump. The answer to Trump is the Socialist left wing with Sanders, Warren, and AOC-type characters. If we don’t get some balance to this “circus,” we are going to get another set of clowns.

[TheRealThing]

Sorry, you’re wrong.

“Impoundment Control Act, says that once Congress appropriates funds — like the Ukraine assistance — and the president signs the relevant spending bill, the executive branch must spend those funds. A president cannot simply ignore Congress’s direction, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing that instruction might be. If funds are withheld or shifted elsewhere, this cannot be done in secret, and Congress must approve.”

Yep, the answer to Obama was the Tea Party and Trump. The answer to Trump is the Socialist left wing with Sanders, Warren, and AOC-type characters. If we don’t get some balance to this “circus,” we are going to get another set of clowns.

I may be wrong about a lot of things but unlike you, I take my legal cues from more of a strict constructionist view. That way people like you, cannot simply read all manner of ridiculousness into the Constitution simply to support your 'cause du jour.' The President may not be compelled to send US taxpayer dollars to any country with the intentions of wrong doing against the best interests of the land. Take for example sending aid dollars to nations which are known supporters of terrorism against the US or her allies. That power is part of the Executive authority as enumerated under article II of the Constitution which states that the President is to wield the "executive power."

No the answer to Obama was the election of 2016 which you and the left would gleefully undo with abandon. I will just wait to see what unfolds over the next 10 months if it's all the same to you.

And as a postscript. I will never accept the left's assertion which states that there is no right or wrong to be rightfully associated with the positions taken by same. It is the left which pushes for forsaking the Christian tenets on which this nation's system of law was established. End of story.

[Cardfan1]

I may be wrong about a lot of things but unlike you, I take my legal cues from more of a strict constructionist view. That way people like you, cannot simply read all manner of ridiculousness into the Constitution simply to support your 'cause du jour.' The President may not be compelled to send US taxpayer dollars to any country with the intentions of wrong doing against the best interests of the land. Take for example sending aid dollars to nations which are known supporters of terrorism against the US or her allies. That power is part of the Executive authority as enumerated under article II of the Constitution which states that the President is to wield the "executive power."

No the answer to Obama was the election of 2016 which you and the left would gleefully undo with abandon. I will just wait to see what unfolds over the next 10 months if it's all the same to you.

And as a postscript. I will never accept the left's assertion which states that there is no right or wrong to be rightfully associated with the positions taken by same. It is the left which pushes for forsaking the Christian tenets on which this nation's system of law was established. End of story.

Presidents must notify Congress after a certain period to withhold appropriated funds. The Trump administration was approaching the deadline of notification for Ukraine. OMB officials were concerned and scrambling to put together the proper notification to Congress in the recent released emails.

If presidents choose to completely withhold money they must have the approval of Congress.

Fans of executive power have President Nixon to thank for all of that.

I said Trump was the answer to Obama. We agreed on that.

Do you see the other impeachment scandals as attempts to overturn elections?

[TheRealThing]

Presidents must notify Congress after a certain period to withhold appropriated funds. The Trump administration was approaching the deadline of notification for Ukraine. OMB officials were concerned and scrambling to put together the proper notification to Congress in the recent released emails.

If presidents choose to completely withhold money they must have the approval of Congress.

- Fans of executive power have President Nixon to thank for all of that.

- I said Trump was the answer to Obama. We agreed on that.

- Do you see the other impeachment scandals as attempts to overturn elections?

- No the growth of executive power was not limited only to the Nixon Presidency. That's been a long trend.

- Not in the way you're characterizing. In 2010 the people began to rise up out of a sense of concern that the nation was being turned into something other than traditional America. By 2016 enough had awoken to the specter of Obama's fundamental transformation so as to halt the slide. I doubt you can take it for granted that the left has that concern safely abated for 2020.

- Nope. Only the one Dems publicly declared on election night.

[jetpilot]

Haven't been on here in a while and not going to read the thread, but anyone who doesn't know impeachment isn't full of Schiff and a nonstarter is a low information brainwashed idiot and someone to avoid at all costs. One minute of contact with these idiots will ruin your day so just don't do it and let them wallow in their miserable hatred and idiocy. Life is too short.

[Cardfan1]

- No the growth of executive power was not limited only to the Nixon Presidency. That's been a long trend.

- Not in the way you're characterizing. In 2010 the people began to rise up out of a sense of concern that the nation was being turned into something other than traditional America. By 2016 enough had awoken to the specter of Obama's fundamental transformation so as to halt the slide. I doubt you can take it for granted that the left has that concern safely abated for 2020.

- Nope. Only the one Dems publicly declared on election night.

The passage of the 1974 Impoundment Act was in response to Nixon.

So if the opposite occurs in 2020 or 2024 will you say that the people rose up in the sense of concern that the nation was being turned into something other than traditional America? Republicans lost the House last year. The Senate and/or Presidency is up for grabs this year. It's pretty reasonable to expect a political shift.

With social media and the constant newscycle, we get a lot of voices these days that aren't always reasonable. Some of that post-election noise was just that.

[TheRealThing]

The passage of the 1974 Impoundment Act was in response to Nixon.

So if the opposite occurs in 2020 or 2024 will you say that the people rose up in the sense of concern that the nation was being turned into something other than traditional America? Republicans lost the House last year. The Senate and/or Presidency is up for grabs this year. It's pretty reasonable to expect a political shift.

With social media and the constant newscycle, we get a lot of voices these days that aren't always reasonable. Some of that post-election noise was just that.

I realize that, and I realize that the Dems had their hackles up about Nixon's willingness to run over them, but thanks.

So will you say that Dems pushing leftist tenets vies on the same spiritual plane that Christian conservatism does? Without getting into the particulars again, what you're really wanting to compare here is liberalism/secular humanism/socialism-- to classical morality as defined by history and that of our own American heritage prior to the 1990's. Everything really is not relative, there really is right, there really is wrong. But you're right about one thing, there are a LOT of voices out there that are not only unreasonable, they an abomination that all that God calls acceptable.

The pendulum may swing back to the left in 2020 alright, but not for the cause of morality or any sort of return to our national roots.

[Cardfan1]

I realize that, and I realize that the Dems had their hackles up about Nixon's willingness to run over them, but thanks.

So will you say that Dems pushing leftist tenets vies on the same spiritual plane that Christian conservatism does? Without getting into the particulars again, what you're really wanting to compare here is liberalism/secular humanism/socialism-- to classical morality as defined by history and that of our own American heritage prior to the 1990's. Everything really is not relative, there really is right, there really is wrong. But you're right about one thing, there are a LOT of voices out there that are not only unreasonable, they an abomination that all that God calls acceptable.

The pendulum may swing back to the left in 2020 alright, but not for the cause of morality or any sort of return to our national roots.

I can't speak for God on what calls acceptable, and especially not in a Message Board Political forum about Impeachment. It seems like anybody who tries opens another argument that is more heated than the last.

I will say pre-1990's wasn't great for a lot of Americans that weren't in my (and I assume your) demographic, and the shift in new voices and new opportunities is sometimes hard to swallow.

Back to Impeachment, John Bolton has agreed to testify at a Senate Impeachment trial if subpoenaed. Is this the first domino in fact witnesses? Will the administration attempt to block him using executive privilege? If everything was "perfect" I would think the administration would be elated to have these witnesses to testify in the Senate trial, but something tells me there may be an attempt to hinder the testimony.

[TheRealThing]

I can't speak for God on what calls acceptable, and especially not in a Message Board Political forum about Impeachment. It seems like anybody who tries opens another argument that is more heated than the last.

I will say pre-1990's wasn't great for a lot of Americans that weren't in my (and I assume your) demographic, and the shift in new voices and new opportunities is sometimes hard to swallow.

Back to Impeachment, John Bolton has agreed to testify at a Senate Impeachment trial if subpoenaed. Is this the first domino in fact witnesses? Will the administration attempt to block him using executive privilege? If everything was "perfect" I would think the administration would be elated to have these witnesses to testify in the Senate trial, but something tells me there may be an attempt to hinder the testimony.

LOL, surely you're not going to try and dodge the fact that the Dem's metamorphosis into today's special interest/secular humanistic/liberal/social justice/anti-American deep feeling La-La lunacy, does not have the first thing to do with the reality of the party of JFK are you? You guys are so far around the bend Davy Crockett couldn't help you find your way back. :biglmao:
The Framers mentioned God often in this land's founding documents for a reason.

God speaks for Himself on what He finds acceptable, it's all arranged in a work He calls His Word, or as we say "The Bible" At any rate, ours is more to conform to what He finds acceptable, AND to tell that truth in all aspects of life. Not lurch off into today's mad dichotomy, where we have seen men mount their sad coup in trying to usurp God's authority by themselves using their own laws to define what right could mean, and that in contravention to His afore mentioned clear dictates. At any rate the whole matter is settled, now men's willingness to accept that? Another story.

Whether pre 1990 was good for all demographics or not, (and I say without question that it was) government's efforts to rectify things especially under Obama were woefully inadequate.


John Bolton said EXACTLY the same thing to the House "If subpoenaed I will testify" and though I know desperation makes an irresistible coat hook, nothing good for the left 'resistance' will come of it. It would likely only be a deposition in the first place. Oh the drama. :please:

[TheRealThing]

Haven't been on here in a while and not going to read the thread, but anyone who doesn't know impeachment isn't full of Schiff and a nonstarter is a low information brainwashed idiot and someone to avoid at all costs. One minute of contact with these idiots will ruin your day so just don't do it and let them wallow in their miserable hatred and idiocy. Life is too short.

Hi Jet, long time no see. You are as astute as ever I see. :biggrin:

[Cardfan1]

LOL, surely you're not going to try and dodge the fact that the Dem's metamorphosis into today's special interest/secular humanistic/liberal/social justice/anti-American deep feeling La-La lunacy, does not have the first thing to do with the reality of the party of JFK are you? You guys are so far around the bend Davy Crockett couldn't help you find your way back. :biglmao:
The Framers mentioned God often in this land's founding documents for a reason.

God speaks for Himself on what He finds acceptable, it's all arranged in a work He calls His Word, or as we say "The Bible" At any rate, ours is more to conform to what He finds acceptable, AND to tell that truth in all aspects of life. Not lurch off into today's mad dichotomy, where we have seen men mount their sad coup in trying to usurp God's authority by themselves using their own laws to define what right could mean, and that in contravention to His afore mentioned clear dictates. At any rate the whole matter is settled, now men's willingness to accept that? Another story.

Whether pre 1990 was good for all demographics or not, (and I say without question that it was) government's efforts to rectify things especially under Obama were woefully inadequate.


John Bolton said EXACTLY the same thing to the House "If subpoenaed I will testify" and though I know desperation makes an irresistible coat hook, nothing good for the left 'resistance' will come of it. It would likely only be a deposition in the first place. Oh the drama. :please:

Nope, Mr. Bolton's lawyer said he would not testify for the HOR unless a court ordered him to comply with a subpoena. Now he is volunteering to answer a subpoena and not challenge it in court as his counsel had threatened before the year's end. The possibility of being deposed at the Senate Trial is definitely preferable to spending hours in front of Congress, so I do not blame him there.

Bolton has been wanting to talk unlike Pompeo, Giuliani, and Mulvany. His split with the administration came during this scandal, and he reportedly referred to the whole scenario as a "drug deal." While many of the witnesses testified about "expectations" and "feelings," Bolton will be testifying about firsthand conversations and experiences. IMO his testimony will exonerate or incriminate POTUS.

[TheRealThing]

Nope, Mr. Bolton's lawyer said he would not testify for the HOR unless a court ordered him to comply with a subpoena. Now he is volunteering to answer a subpoena and not challenge it in court as his counsel had threatened before the year's end. The possibility of being deposed at the Senate Trial is definitely preferable to spending hours in front of Congress, so I do not blame him there.

Bolton has been wanting to talk unlike Pompeo, Giuliani, and Mulvany. His split with the administration came during this scandal, and he reportedly referred to the whole scenario as a "drug deal." While many of the witnesses testified about "expectations" and "feelings," Bolton will be testifying about firsthand conversations and experiences. IMO his testimony will exonerate or incriminate POTUS.

LOL oh yeah. He's just bustin to betray honor.

I know what the rabid dogs are saying there Cardfan. I've heard it now since Trump announced. ABTW, you don't think Bolton knows the difference between the Schiff show and a respectably run Senate process. I mean I know the left's hopes now fall on Schumer but get a grip.

[Cardfan1]

LOL oh yeah. He's just bustin to betray honor.

I know what the rabid dogs are saying there Cardfan. I've heard it now since Trump announced. ABTW, you don't think Bolton knows the difference between the Schiff show and a respectably run Senate process. I mean I know the left's hopes now fall on Schumer but get a grip.

Wait...if Bolton’s testimony is against Trump he betrays honor? Shouldn’t his allegiance be to the nation rather than a man?

You don’t believe Bolton will exonerate the President?

Yes, I said I don’t blame him for waiting until a controlled deposition rather than a House testimony where both sides are trying to score points.

McConnell says he has enough votes to move on with the trial procedures when Pelosi delivers the Articles. Looks like they will use the same procedures as the Clinton trial.

[TheRealThing]

Wait...if Bolton’s testimony is against Trump he betrays honor? Shouldn’t his allegiance be to the nation rather than a man?

You don’t believe Bolton will exonerate the President?

Yes, I said I don’t blame him for waiting until a controlled deposition rather than a House testimony where both sides are trying to score points.

McConnell says he has enough votes to move on with the trial procedures when Pelosi delivers the Articles. Looks like they will use the same procedures as the Clinton trial.

I don't think President Trump is guilty of any sort of malfeasance. Full stop. Nary so much as a glancing blow to that end was accomplished by the sham impeachment. Therefore, why would the President or any lucid minded supporter be all that concerned with exoneration? Bolton's allegiance is IMHO, to both the President and the nation. That's possible because again, MR Trump is innocent of wrongdoing.

The rabid left are grasping at straws with regard to ousting MR Trump, I've had the misfortune of having to listen to much of it. It was you that said Bolton has been 'wanting to talk.' To which I made my remark. In the meantime now that the DOJ has to some degree been restored to reason and meaningful function, I will be happy to wait on John Durham's investigation on the whole shameful affair.

[Cardfan1]

I don't think President Trump is guilty of any sort of malfeasance. Full stop. Nary so much as a glancing blow to that end was accomplished by the sham impeachment. Therefore, why would the President or any lucid minded supporter be all that concerned with exoneration? Bolton's allegiance is IMHO, to both the President and the nation. That's possible because again, MR Trump is innocent of wrongdoing.

The rabid left are grasping at straws with regard to ousting MR Trump, I've had the misfortune of having to listen to much of it. It was you that said Bolton has been 'wanting to talk.' To which I made my remark. In the meantime now that the DOJ has to some degree been restored to reason and meaningful function, I will be happy to wait on John Durham's investigation on the whole shameful affair.

Then why did Bolton call the whole scandal a "drug deal" if he felt it was all above board?

Isn't Durham investigating the Horowitz investigation that was investigating the Mueller investigation?

[TheRealThing]

Then why did Bolton call the whole scandal a "drug deal" if he felt it was all above board?

Isn't Durham investigating the Horowitz investigation that was investigating the Mueller investigation?

Don't look to me for positive reinforcement in your hopes to see injustice accomplished. Surely Buzz Feed or the like has something to slake your desperate hopes this morning. You know the left is desperate when they are forced to turn to one of the people they despise the most as their last ditch chance at a savior.

Durham is investigating everything. FISA abuse and the machinations of the intel community extending out wherever the evidence leads. Damning evidence. That BTW is what Durham has plenty of with regard to the resistance, and that is that which nobody has any of with regard to Presidential malfeasance.