About time as Pelosi will hold a vote this week on impeachment

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you prove otherwise?

What would you like me to prove exactly?

Certainly if it's a factual claim, I can prove it.

That Trump has been right all along.

Trump hasn't been right all along; why would I try to prove that?

I'm betting something in their process will require the stopping of the IG investigation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Is Hunter Biden under criminal investigation, or is it Trump's imaginary "Crowdstrike server" ?

I actually do hope Barr and Durham have ... something ... or they're going to go down in history as a footnote listing the felons associated with the President and his Campaign.

The President has the remit to decide if someone needs to be investigated. He can direct his AG to investigate.
Whether he made that determination, or whether the DoJ were already looking into the dealings within the Ukraine is not really important.

Now, if there were no grounds for an investigation at all then it could be argued that he is abusing his power, however, there is already plenty of public information to support an investigation. This is the crux of the matter imho. The house, and the Senate if it gets to that, will need to determine whether there was ever any grounds, which means we'll need to get into the detail of what Joe Biden and Hunter Biden (amongst others) were doing. THAT is the real debate. The nonsense about quid pro quos, the phone call and some 2nd hand whistleblowers pearl clutching are completely irrelevant.

If there were grounds to investigate then POTUS has acted completely within his remit. He would be fully entitled to not just ask for help from Ukraine, but also to exert pressure to gain that help.

As for Barr and his team, so far they have acted in complete accordance with the law. Barr even informed Congress of the inquiry into potential spying in 2016/17 and the work has been ongoing. Now they seem to have found enough to turn this into a criminal investigation. To suggest that they are criminals for doing their job once again smacks of a belief that Democrats are somehow above the law. Any investigation into their behaviour must somehow be illegal or corrupt.

a reply to: 727Sky

Again I'm starting to think they had this all planned out. They know they will not get the votes, they know that Trump will not get impeached because they have no real evidence that could hold up if challenged so instead they'll use this as a campaign tactic. When you have the true run, when the nominees are chosen they can say things like "Well we tried the republicans knew he was guilty so they didn't vote to impeach" I mean c'mon its politics 101.

The Democrats have no idea what they're doing. They are killing off their own base. People don't want to know that the Demoncrats want to defeat Trump, that's a given, they want to know what you would do differently TO Trump, what would your answer to medicare for all be, do you want to strengthen Obamacare, do you really want to take all guns, do you want open borders and if not how would you secure them, do you want to bring taxes on the rich of the rich (some of you are in that group) give Americans a real minimum wage etc. etc. etc.

Democrats spend their interviews talking about Trump and all the bad evil things he has done but they never seem to talk about their plans. Someone needs to tell them that even if Trump was impeached it wouldn't mean the election would be undone and Hillary would be sitting on the throne and that Pence, a very religious man, would step up but then if that happened the Demos would start saying "Impeach Pence" and suddenly he would have connections to Russia lol.

Oh side note: My newspaper was stolen from my front step, bloody Russians !

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you prove otherwise?

What would you like me to prove exactly?

Certainly if it's a factual claim, I can prove it.

That Trump has been right all along.

Trump hasn't been right all along; why would I try to prove that?

Yep, you're unable to, that's why, reason why I said "Doubtful".

Your spin and reducing the legitimacy of Barr and Durham is laughable, but once again, you don't call up a Criminal Inquiry for feels 😌

You people got nothing 😙

a reply to: UKTruth

The protocol set forth in the DOJ under many different Administrations for many years (since Watergate) was that the President didn't interfere or direct the activities of the Justice Department and the Justice Department didn't allow their work to become political.

Are you saying that has changed with President Trump?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It may have changed with Obama (aka Hope & Change) 😃

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you prove otherwise?

What would you like me to prove exactly?

Certainly if it's a factual claim, I can prove it.

That Trump has been right all along.

Trump hasn't been right all along; why would I try to prove that?

Yep, you're unable to, that's why, reason why I said "Doubtful".

Your spin and reducing the legitimacy of Barr and Durham is laughable, but once again, you don't call up a Criminal Inquiry for feels 😌

You people got nothing 😙

I didn't make that claim, you did. Why don't you prove it?

I'd like to suggest an answer. Your post is not concerned with facts, evidence, truth, or anything but heaping praise on your political idols.

Some seem really impressed with the words "criminal inquiry" in the same hyperbolic fashion we've seen for years.

Comey, Huber, etc. etc. Some folks absolutely believed all the folks they didn't like were finally going to be punished.

Didn't happen then, it's not likely to happen now. Barr is Trump's man, and all he's doing is providing cover.

All that will happen is that his name will also be besmirched along with so many others who beleived in the President.

IN my opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

The protocol set forth in the DOJ under many different Administrations for many years (since Watergate) was that the President didn't interfere or direct the activities of the Justice Department and the Justice Department didn't allow their work to become political.

Are you saying that has changed with President Trump?

The President decides ALL protocol in the Executive branch - if he so desires he can change any protocol he likes. He can change whatever he likes when he likes as long as it is within the law. The AG serves at the President's pleasure. ALL power in the Executive branch is vested in the President.

I don't think that power has ever changed and I don't think Presidents since Watergate have had their constitutional authority curtailed by DoJ protocol.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well, he can within certain LEGAL limits, but those are thin, I'll grant you. The President is not a dictator and only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and limited by the Congress of the United States.

The point has been, prior to Trump, after Nixon, that the President and the DOJ remained at an objective distance in order to restore public confidence in the impartiality of the legal system.

I'm sure Trump supporters would cheer on the President's use of the Justice Department to go after his enemies, at the same time they would be damning Obama for doing so.

The times we live in, eh?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

It may have changed with Obama (aka Hope & Change) 😃

Obama and those before him. The President has always had the remit to direct law enforcement and will continue to have that remit until such a time as the constitution is changed.
Obama himself directed the Russia inquiry at the start. He ordered it as one of his last acts - directing the intelligence community, including the FBI - subordinate to the DoJ - to review and report.
If Trump ordered the DoJ to review what happened in the Ukraine, it's no different.

originally posted by: UKTruth

If Trump ordered the DoJ to review what happened in the Ukraine, it's no different.

Did he though, that's the rub.

ETA: Also, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the Ukraine or in Cyprus (where Burisma is headquartered).

What is the possible basis for breaches of AMERICAN law that took place on Ukrainian soil?

The conspiracy theories keep brushing over that point. The President could ask for help with an AMERICAN investgation, but Burisma is not an American company.

Can you clear that up?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

I wonder how much of this in response to Kupperman deciding to ask a judge whether he was actually legally bound to show up for testimony?
Was Nancy less than thrilled with the idea of the possibility that a federal judge might rule that Kupperman was, in fact, not required to testify? If that happens, the whole thing's exposed.

If she's so certain these subpoenas trump executive privilege, why not just let the judge rule so and continue the "official inquiry" the way it's being conducted and then vote on articles?

The question is, do these "subpoenas" have any teeth, trumping executive privilege? It's my understanding that, without a vote, in at least the committee, they don't.

For those saying "this was the plan the whole time", I don't really think it was. It was my understanding that they were going to continue behind closed doors and then bring articles up for a vote.

I mean, I was told there was no need to vote on an official inquiry. But here we are, voting on an official inquiry.

On principle, I was never necessarily against an official inquiry. It's the majority's perogative. I am, however, against a process carried out in secret, with only strategic leaks to drive narratives and no ability for the minority to participate in a meaningful way. Looks like we might finally get a little transparency and due process in this circus.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, he can within certain LEGAL limits, but those are thin, I'll grant you. The President is not a dictator and only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and limited by the Congress of the United States.

The point has been, prior to Trump, after Nixon, that the President and the DOJ remained at an objective distance in order to restore public confidence in the impartiality of the legal system.

I'm sure Trump supporters would cheer on the President's use of the Justice Department to go after his enemies, at the same time they would be damning Obama for doing so.

The times we live in, eh?

Yes, within the law. On that basis, every single person in the Executive branch wields the PRESIDENT's power under the constitution. They have none of their own power.

Obama ordered the intelligence community to assess Russian interference as an example. Totally within his remit to do so.
There has been for 3 years an attempt by Democrats to lessen the constitutional power of the President by criminalising - often through the media - perfectly legitmate Presidential acts.

Which brings me back to the only point that I think is relevant. Did the President abuse his power. That he has the power is not in question - at least not by those who objectively look at what his powers actually are. For POTUS to have abused the power of his office there would have to be zero reason to order a review of what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

If Trump ordered the DoJ to review what happened in the Ukraine, it's no different.

Did he though, that's the rub.

ETA: Also, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the Ukraine or in Cyprus (where Burisma is headquartered).

What is the possible basis for breaches of AMERICAN law that took place on Ukrainian soil?

The conspiracy theories keep brushing over that point. The President could ask for help with an AMERICAN investgation, but Burisma is not an American company.

Can you clear that up?

It doesn't really matter. He's entitled to do so.
Seeking information from an ally does not require juristiction. The issue is not prosecuting Burisma, rather finding out if US Citizens broke US law.
One could also point to the Mueller investigation as a parallel. He went after Russians and a Russian business, not under the juristiction of the USA.

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is not entitled to launch investigations on Ukranian soil.

If Hunter Biden was involved in illegal activities at Burisma (and according to prior Ukranian investigations, he wasn't) then this process went in reverse: the President of Ukraine should ahve been asking Mr. Trump for help, because the crimes would have been within Ukrainian disposition ... right?

What crime is Hunter Biden being investigated for in America?

Now What ?? 😃

Pelosi says -- “It’s not an impeachment resolution.”

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, you stealth edited.

What crime is Hunter Biden suspected of in the United States?

Also, as far as the Mueller investigation, the crimes were COMMITTED in the US, therefore, the US has jurisdiction.

Allegedly, Hunter's possible crimes took place in Ukraine, and the US has ZERO jurisdiction there.

So, try again. Why would the President ask for help with an American committing crimes in the Ukraine?