Trump Impeachment Thread

a reply to: carewemust

The DoJ doesn't have to do anything. Lindsey Graham has already announced he is opening an investigation into the Hunter Biden Ukraine issue using the Senate Judiciary Committee. All Trump has to do now is sit back and smile as the Senate does the dirty work and then Barr can take over from there.

The Democrats have sealed their own fate.

TheRedneck

Hunter and joe ran their Ukraine scam up until 2016.

Trump was elected and they were either dumb enough or currupt enough that they thought they could keep laundering cash while he was draining the swamp.

The Bidens are the swamp monsters that thought Schiff and Nadler could talk there way out of this.

They can not!

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TheRedneck

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we're going to have witnesses. Mitch McConnell says he now has enough Republicans and Democrats to avoid witness testimony.

I sure hope President Trump directs attorney general Barr to investigate The Whistleblower hoax. When he uncovers the truth, the house impeachment will be cancelled and removed from all records.

No witnesses is a good thing. I did not originally think so, but having witnesses will just drag this out for months and giv the media material to spin against trump.

Schiff would lie, Biden would take the fifth, and Bolton would likely testify spitefully for being fired.

Best to just end this.

Who really thinks an investigation of Biden is illegitimate?

This is just a garbage argument from Schiff.

I am almost in disbelief of what I heard the House say tonight.

They essentially said they didn't need to have a vote in the House to subpoena anyone, that the House rules dictate how they conduct themselves and the Constitution gives them sole power on impeachment, without stipulations on how to conduct themselves. Now it is clear to me. This is to set the precedent that the House doesn't have to follow any specific process to impeach, to give themselves the power "between the lines" of the Constitution to impeach the President for anything at anytime.

The WH counsel responded with how dangerous that is and how there has never been an impeachment process or investigation started without a vote by the House, and went through how power is given by the people to the House, then the House has a vote to give power to Committees to do specific things, that there isn't a precedent anywhere, ever in our history, of the House going around that.

This is dangerous territory we are in, and the House is way overstepping their Constitutional authority. I'm shocked that they have the balls to say that in front of Chief Justice Roberts, and I'm sure he's already considering the implications when this arrives on his desk in the near future.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well, the House is all they have. It has to be omnipotent.

In 2016, the Democrats lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. All they had was the courts. They managed to get a majority in the House in 2018, but by then they had lost the courts due to Trump and the Senate filling vacancies as fast as they could. So now the House is all they have, so they have to use it to strongarm their way back into power.

In 2020 they'll lose the House as well, and we'll be back to the argument that the minority should have as much representation as the majority. That's what I kept hearing after 2016 anyway. It's always been about their power... damn the Republican Party, damn the Constitution, damn the People... and the only way to stop this circus sideshow is to put them all... ALL... out of power for good.

I've been paying attention to Doug Jones, as I have mentioned several times. He hasn't said much, but what little he has said leads me to believe he may be having second thoughts about how deep this rabbit hole goes. I would not be surprised if, should he be elected in 2020, he doesn't change parties. After all, back in the 1980s Shelby did that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I am almost in disbelief of what I heard the House say tonight.

They essentially said they didn't need to have a vote in the House to subpoena anyone, that the House rules dictate how they conduct themselves and the Constitution gives them sole power on impeachment, without stipulations on how to conduct themselves. Now it is clear to me. This is to set the precedent that the House doesn't have to follow any specific process to impeach, to give themselves the power "between the lines" of the Constitution to impeach the President for anything at anytime.

The WH counsel responded with how dangerous that is and how there has never been an impeachment process or investigation started without a vote by the House, and went through how power is given by the people to the House, then the House has a vote to give power to Committees to do specific things, that there isn't a precedent anywhere, ever in our history, of the House going around that.

This is dangerous territory we are in, and the House is way overstepping their Constitutional authority. I'm shocked that they have the balls to say that in front of Chief Justice Roberts, and I'm sure he's already considering the implications when this arrives on his desk in the near future.

~Namaste

Yeah, they have been saying crap like that the whole time. They have no respect for the separation of powers or the constitution.

The incredibly sad thing is they are going to get 45 or more votes in support of This madness.

Our government is not functioning correctly at all. 1 or 2 senators is literally the only thing saving us from eventual civil war IMO.

a reply to: proximo

I agree.

Today it is 53-47... tomorrow it's going to be nearly 400 million - 535.

Philbin is incredible, this guy is a machine. The WH counsel has destroyed the House today. I don't see any Republicans needing to see more and wouldn't be surprised to see some Dems cross the aisle.

~Namaste

Adam Schiff is fuming mad or really, I can hear his voice trembling and his breathing is shallow...

He's winded while he's speaking and stammering.

~Namaste

ETA: I was referring to the very last question he was asked.

Hmmmm, on second question of the day, Roberts refused Rand Paul's question.

They really don't want EC to be exposed.

Wonder why?

originally posted by: pavil
Hmmmm, on second question of the day, Roberts refused Rand Paul's question.

They really don't want EC to be exposed.

Wonder why?

I am curious if he will figure out a different way to word his question?

a reply to: CynConcepts

I think he's just letting the Dems know what will happen if they let the "more witnesses" genie out of the bottle.

originally posted by: pavil
Hmmmm, on second question of the day, Roberts refused Rand Paul's question.

They really don't want EC to be exposed.

Wonder why?

That's the second time... he did it last night too.

I hope there is a way he can get the question out there, because it's important to show that Schiff lied to the Senate.

The "House Rules" being changed to allow subpoena power is BS... that should not apply to impeachment without a vote in the House, period, end of story. There has to be a line drawn. That is a manipulation of the Constitution and the powers that the House bestows on itself to overstep the separation of powers. Extremely dangerous for our country.

~Namaste

a reply to: pavil

I guess I dont know the full rules of this - i.e. wouldn't Rand be allowed to ask another question? How can Robert's just refuse to read a question? I.e. if he is able to do that couldnt a judge technically refuse to read all questions from the political party he didnt like?

So far, every response from the House is to hear from Bolton or Mulvaney. Every. Single. One. It's insane.

This is turning into such a mockery and an abuse of Constitutional interpretation.

I hope that the House gets taken by the Republicans and they undo the subpoena power. The House should have used the Judicial, and they didn't. They instead changed the rules of the House to do the job of the Justice Department and Judicial branch of government. This is absolutely insane.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfThor

It's not that. Roberts doesn't want to be the one who "Outs" Eric CIAmelli by name. Sen Paul's question probably named EC, hence his refusal to read the question. This limit had been set before the trial by Roberts. If we go to fullbourne witnesses, his name will be plastered everywhere and Roberts won't be able to prevent it.

This farce is almost over. Like anyone in DC doesn't know who the whistleblower is.....

So far, every question to the Managers today has turned into a rant that doesn't answer the question. They're squirming... it's obvious.

You know the DNC is watching the polls like a starving hawk watching a field mouse... so if the Managers are squirming like this, it's pretty obvious their plan is backfiring bigly.

TheRedneck

Factual basis of truth for the bias in the media and the shepherding of the sheep:

The conservative Media Research Center examined ABC’s “World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News” from Jan. 22 to Jan. 28 to determine how the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was covered.

“They gave Democrats double the airtime and showered their arguments with mostly praise, while expressing only criticism of the President’s legal team,” MRC news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro wrote.

The study found that the three networks “made a total of 34 evaluative statements about the merits and effectiveness of both sides,” with 21 of them being about Democratic impeachment managers.

“Of that total, 95 percent of those (20) touted their efforts and presentations, which means only one of their evaluative comments were negative,” Fondacaro wrote. “NBC had the lone negative comment.”

By comparison, the MRC found that “every evaluative statement from reporters and anchors about the merits and effectiveness of Trump’s defense team were negative,” with ABC and CBS having five negative comments each and NBC having three.

“The networks would roundly tear down the arguments Trump’s legal team was making despite the evidence they would present,” Fondacaro wrote. “Along with that heavy praise for House impeachment managers came a sizable boost in the amount of airtime allowed for their side. More than double, in fact.”

The study found that Democratic managers received nearly 25 minutes of airtime, compared to less than 12 minutes for Trump’s defense team.

Source

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There was a time, not long ago, when I would have laughed at the very concept of quantification of media bias. Now, the bias has become so pervasive that it is easily and regularly quantified.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Why is my cynical self not surprised by this?