By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 26 January 2020
Radek said:

This just in. CNN is still race baiting by saying Trump has too many white lawyers LMAO.

Mainstream media only see race, they don't see people.

Hasn't CNN made it clear enough that Trump is the biggest racist ever?

Yet CNN wonders why he doesn't have a multicultural group defending him?

This just in at CNN, Israel lacks German military generals.



Around the Network
jason1637 on 27 January 2020

I've read that apparantly the President of Ukraine had no idea aid was delayed until it was reported. If it's true the whole impeachment feels like a scam.



jason1637 on 27 January 2020
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:
I've read that apparantly the President of Ukraine had no idea aid was delayed until it was reported. If it's true the whole impeachment feels like a scam.

Imagine being the president of Ukraine in early 2019 and having your aid held hostage by the US president...who could remain the US president for possibly 5 more years.  Now, do you really want to speak out against that guy?

Probably not but if you can't prove a quid pro quo then why was he impeached? Also apparently the house did not follow proper supena process by holding a vote and taking executive privilege to the court. This whole thing seemed rushed and not fledged out tbh.



jason1637 on 27 January 2020
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Probably not but 1) if you can't prove a quid pro quo then why was he impeached? Also apparently the house 2) did not follow proper supena process by holding a vote and 3) taking executive privilege to the court. This whole thing seemed rushed and not fledged out tbh.

1). Imagine withholding all the evidence and then saying prove it. 

2). That's a minor technicality and using it as your entire defense is foolish.

3). You don't need to take it to court.  Congress has the sole power of impeachment and in the US vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege does not have priority over an impeachment proceeding.

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.



SuaveSocialist on 27 January 2020
jason1637 said:
 

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. 

 

That's quite inaccurate.  You can have cases of sexual assault even if the victim denies it ever happened or insists it was consensual, such as statutory rape.  You can have cases of regular assault (such as a barfight) where the victim can claim that nothing happened but the bartender, owner, server, bouncer or whoever presses charges.  Many times, where an assault takes place is enough to supersede any claims that the assault victim makes.

That's not an opinion.  That's just how the law works.  It's a matter of record, I'm afraid, even in West Korea.  It is to your peril if you test this out for yourself.

But this is not a case of assault, so your insights into the legal system weren't applicable anyway.  This is something else entirely, and the existing evidence is certainly strong enough to stand on its own merits.  If the President of Ukraine wishes to testify, well, West Korea's kangaroo court probably wouldn't allow it.  Beloved Leader's collaborators clearly don't want any more witnesses to go on record.  



Around the Network
jason1637 on 27 January 2020
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

1). That doesn't absolve someone of the crime though.  And why hold back thousands of documents and prevent the entire executive branch from testifying if you aren't guilty?

2). I'll have to look further into what they should have done.

3). And just for the record, the House did ask the courts about the subpoenas.  They said it's not our jurisdiction.

I do think it's very sketchy how the Trump admin was trying to keep things under lock and not complying with Congress and impeachment for obstruction does nakes sense but there's no solid evidence for impeachment for the quid pro quo since Ukraine is saying they didn't know about the withheld aid.



tsogud on 28 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
Due to the large amount of new posts here, I assume that the impeachment is discussed in this thread rather than in its dedicated spinoff.

I want to congratulate US-Americans for having a justice system where the majority in the government can comfortably block the presentation of evidence and the attendance of witnesses without being guilty of obstruction of justice.

Who were the people who made those rules and what were they thinking?

Racist, sexist old white men. They were prolly too occupied killing, raping and enslaving Natives and Africans and stealing land to flesh out all their "rules"



 

EricHiggin on 28 January 2020

Dems - Dr Evil & crew
Reps (Trump & Melania) - Powers & girl
Impeachment transition delay - "Unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism"



TallSilhouette on 28 January 2020

Anyone else getting whiplash?

https://youtu.be/-AEzA4avnxs



EricHiggin on 29 January 2020
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Imagine withholding all the evidence and then saying prove it. 

2). That's a minor technicality and using it as your entire defense is foolish.

3). You don't need to take it to court.  Congress has the sole power of impeachment and in the US vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege does not have priority over an impeachment proceeding.

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

This vid should give you a better understanding based on a few of your points. Different arguments with different justifications. It's not clear that either side is right or wrong, more that they are both simply using the tools and influence available to them, which isn't purely one sided.