By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why are democrats wasting time with Trump's impeachment?

DryHeat said:
SpokenTruth said:

You, much like impeachment inquiry sessions, are missing something.

Contempt of Congress - 2 U.S.C. § 192 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 2. The Congress § 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.

Trump, the White House and several others have violated 2 U.S.C. § 192.  This will be included as an Article of Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice.  It requires no witnesses and no testimony.  The evidence is all factual documentation.  And for the Senate to ignore this article would in itself be a violation of multiple codes meaning each senator themselves would be open for impeachment.

I don't think you understand just how much of a corner they have backed themselves into. The failure to comply with the congressional subpoenas for testimony and documentation was an even greater screw up than the actual bribery. 

According to the constitution, the executive branch is entitled to keep some things confidential at the discretion of the president. Always has, always will. It has to be that way. Trump would be gutting the office of president for himself and all future presidents if he ceded all power and authority to congress. 

Executive privilege does not extend to impeachment proceedings. 

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that executive privilege is an absolute privilege in United States v. Nixon.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
DryHeat said:

In case you don't know, Barr is currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe (many criminal charges are expected, one leaked out today already). Barr asked Trump to ask Zelensky for his help in this matter. It's as simple as that.

You can read more about the Ukrainian meddling here: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You are equivocating all over the place, partly because you don't understand the context and back-story.

I'll say it again, not one single witness said that Trump told him or her that aid was contingent on "digging up dirt on Biden". That is what the Democrats claimed, and that is what they did not prove.

An account with 5 posts, all in Trump-related threads, ignored everything Trump actually said in the call, and then lists things Trump never said. While claiming I'm the one who doesn't understand.
How surprising.

Trump didn't say a single word about what you've been stating in the transcript. Not that it matters even if he did. Because he specifically told Zelenski he wanted him to help Barr investigate the Bidens.

As for whichever of the 500 conspiracy theories tied to Crowdstrike and the server you think Trump was refering to, that's on you.
Trump thinks that Crowdstrike is Ukraine-based , but it is not. It is based in Sunnyvale, California, and has a big office in Arlington, Virginia.
Trump also thinks there's a missing server, but there apparently is not.
Or maybe he's referring to the theory that the DNC framed Russia for the election interference in 2016, and that Biden covered it up with the help of Ukraine officials.

Either way, it doesn't matter.
What matters is that he specified he wanted Zelenski to help Barr investigation the Bidens.
And that 400 million in aid was withheld for months until the day after the house demanded the acting DNI to hand over the whistle blower complaint.

Your excuse here is that these are just gigantic coincidences that anyone would swallow, and that "That's a nice daughter you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to her", means not a single witness heard a threat aimed at the child.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 November 2019

He did something bad. Congress is responsible for hold the President accountable.



Can you show me the part in the call where Trump says he is withholding aid until they "dig up dirt"? Speculation is worthless when you are attempting to remove a duly elected president. Only cold hard facts will suffice.

Oh, and by the way, Democrats are not immune from being investigated, especially when you are crooked as Biden and his son.



DryHeat:
Can you show me the part in the call where Trump says he is withholding aid until they "dig up dirt"? Speculation is worthless when you are attempting to remove a duly elected president. Only cold hard facts will suffice.

Can you show us the part where Trump mentioned anything that you said before? Because speculation is worthless when defending a crime.

Actually, that's not how anything works. Especially when it's as blatant as this. If someone says "That's a beautiful daughter you have. It'd be a shame if something happened to her", then the "Please show me where he specifically said he would hurt her?" defense wouldn't fly.

Even in a legal proceeding. And impeachment is a political process.

Facts are, on the subject of defense he asked Zelinski to do him a favor though, and work with Barr to investigate the Bidens.
And aid was withheld for months until the the day after the whistleblower complaint leaked.

A double digit IQ will suffice here.

By the way, moderators have called for this thread to be locked because it's a "low-quality thread around some silly animation video".

I kept it open because I thought there may be some interesting conversations spawned from it in spite of that. But instead I see a lot of low-effort posts. People ignoring what the other person said. And people with 1 post to their name popping up, etc.

So I'll lock this now. But I may remake it in a much more comprehensive manner than Snoopy did. And hopefully it sparks a more productive discussion.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 November 2019