Originally posted by JimLamebrain
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Whistleblower identified
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostShow me your best example of me "standing behind Trump" as opposed to standing up for the truth. As I have stated numerous times, Trump has actually done enough on his own to warrant criticism without people making stuff up, or going to extremes like declaring him a criminal when that hasn't yet been established. It MAY! But he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us.
Show me where I have excused or defended Trump's evil, please.
I believe in truth and decency, Jim.
If you are truly 'in the middle' and only care about the truth and do not wish to defend or excuse Trump's evil, then you can't be minimizing the evidence that is there that Trump is not following the law. You don't have to crawl over to the other side and be as sure as I am that he's guilty, but you are supporting the narrative there is nothing there, and that narrative is a lie. There is a lot there, it just may not be enough to convict.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNot according to the NY Times I read. You obviously read the NY Times through Trump-tinted glasses.
“Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had the courage to put the country’s interests before his own. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, came forward to tell the truth about President Trump’s actions, despite the obvious risks to his career”.
“Vindman reportedly told impeachment investigators that the White House record of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president contained deliberate omissions. “Every charge against the president has proved true as the investigation has progressed, and not a single witness so far has provided countervailing evidence,” the former Justice Department official Matthew Miller wrote”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI gave you the example CP. The example is defending the idea that there was nothing implying at the very least the potential for obfuscation of justice in the Meullar report when there clearly was.
The example is standing with the idea that Muellar could have TOLD congress they needed to impeach, e.g. explicitly recommended it when he very likely could not, for the simple reason that such a recommendation would be effectively an indictment, and he was not allowed to indict, and that somehow that negates all the instances of apparent obstruction in the report.
If you are truly 'in the middle'
and only care about the truth and do not wish to defend or excuse Trump's evil, then you can't be minimizing the evidence that is there that Trump is not following the law.
You don't have to crawl over to the other side and be as sure as I am that he's guilty,
but you are supporting the narrative there is nothing there, and that narrative is a lie.
There is a lot there, it just may not be enough to convict.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, Jim, that's flat wrong - a recommendation for impeachment hearings is not an indictment. An indictment is what would be expected as the outcome of a successful impeachment hearing.
Never claimed that. I'm pretty much conservative through and through.
See, we have a difference of opinion on this --- your accusation of "minimizing the evidence" is my "waiting for actual facts and not jumping on the 'hate Trump' bandwagon".
Guilty of what, exactly? Being a jackass? We're in agreement, I'm sure. Actually being a criminal? What's the crime?
The specifics for obstruction have mutliple examples in the Muellar report. The quid-pro-quo is all over the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses and the call transcipt, and the emoluments clause if his snubbing his nose at the entire idea from day one and pretending it doesn't even exist. Every time a Diplomat stays at the DC Trump hotel, it is a potential violation of the emoluments clause.
No, Jim, I'm not. I'm just not wild-eyed hate-Trump absolutely totally obsessed with "get Trump".
So, WHO CARES if there's not enough to convict, right? Let's just keep piling on and look at every single piece of gossip and salacious reporting and commentary from the left and rumor and leak...... lock him up! Who needs "enough to convict"?
Again, you are minimizing the issues and the evidence. If this were any other person, even any other president, they would be toast by now. But somehow Trump has convinced you and a large part of the US to pretend what he has done is 'not so bad'. That is just what he does. And he is good at it. What he said on the access hollywood tape was 'just locker room talk'. Forget about all those women that say he assaulted them, and who he paid off (possibly illegally). No - it wasn't 'that bad'. And he's doing that with the quid-pro-quo too. 'It was a perfect call'. Nothing wrong. he says. Yet the bottom line is he held up half a billion dollars in critical aid needed to defend against an enemy of the United States so he could get dirt on a political opponent. And here you and others are: 'It wasn't so bad', "you can't prooooove' that is why he did that" and so on.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-01-2019, 02:15 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostCP - It would effectively be one if he had recommended it. The impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment as it relates to a criminal trial.
In both cases, impeachment or grand jury, the case for an indictment is considered. If an indictment comes forward, then it moves to trial. In the case of impeachment, that would be the Senate. In the case of grand jury, that would be the actual criminal trial.
Trump impeachment hearing: Here's how the process works
The presidential impeachment process
An impeachment proceeding is the formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment.
The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.
"The critical determination comes to the speaker about whether or not to forward it," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process, told ABC News in 2017.
....
If there is a decision to move forward with impeachment proceedings, the speaker would decide if the House Judiciary Committee handles the impeachment inquiry, or if a separate special committee is formed.
The special committee would be empowered to broaden the focus of the inquiry -- or investigation.
If the speaker assigns the House Judiciary Committee to investigate, there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment.
A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.
Each article of impeachment that is passed by a simple majority vote in committee would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If any of those articles gets a simple majority vote, which is 50% plus one more vote, "the House will have impeached the president," Gerhardt said.
Any (or all) of those articles of impeachment, having received the 50%-plus-one affirmative vote, constitute the equivalent of the indictment, which begins the trial in the Senate.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAccording to the Associated Press, the supposed omissions were one or two words at most: "Vindman also told investigators he tried to change the White House’s rough transcript of the call by filling in at least one of the omitted words, 'Burisma'..." so nothing significant. Furthermore, there was nothing in Vindman's prepared opening statement that questioned the accuracy of the official transcript.
Vindman’s prepared statement indicates he believes that the released transcript is accurate. He said: “As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.” If Vindman had contended that the transcript was not accurate, then his recollection might be material. But that is not what he claimed.
Although some left-leaning media outlets now claim the transcript has omissions and is not accurate, Vindman did not make that claim or dispute the accuracy of the transcript. If he later changes course and claims, contrary to his prepared statement, that the transcript is not accurate, then such a shift would raise obvious credibility issues. But that discussion is for another day, if it happens.
And worst of all for the impeachment co-conspirators, Vindman's testimony did add any new facts. All we got from him were opinion and hand-wringing appeals to emotion...
Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions.
Here is what he said: “I was concerned by the call. [1] I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. [2] I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.”
The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.
Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.
Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.
There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.
So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.
Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.
If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01...onal-opinions/
It's like how arms expert and former NSC official Tim Morrison (one of those who sat in on the call between Trump and Zelensky) testified yesterday that nothing illegal was said.
Yet how was this news that Morrison testifies he "wasn't concerned that anything illegal was discussed" during the Trump-Zelensky call?
Or that "Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019"?
Or that Morrison strenuously disagreed with several key claims made by State Department official William Taylor?
Well CNN reports it as ""Impeachment deposition: NSC official corroborates testimony linking Ukraine aid to investigations." And the Washington Post declares "White House Official Corroborates Diplomat’s Account that Trump Appeared to Seek Quid Pro Quo"
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, Jim, ya got that wrong. The impeachment is not the equivalent of an indictment. It is the equivalent of a grand jury hearing as it relates to a criminal trial, not an indictment.
In both cases, impeachment or grand jury, the case for an indictment is considered. If an indictment comes forward, then it moves to trial. In the case of impeachment, that would be the Senate. In the case of grand jury, that would be the actual criminal trial.
Trump impeachment hearing: Here's how the process works
The presidential impeachment process
An impeachment proceeding is the formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment.
The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.
"The critical determination comes to the speaker about whether or not to forward it," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process, told ABC News in 2017.
....
If there is a decision to move forward with impeachment proceedings, the speaker would decide if the House Judiciary Committee handles the impeachment inquiry, or if a separate special committee is formed.
The special committee would be empowered to broaden the focus of the inquiry -- or investigation.
If the speaker assigns the House Judiciary Committee to investigate, there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment.
A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.
Each article of impeachment that is passed by a simple majority vote in committee would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If any of those articles gets a simple majority vote, which is 50% plus one more vote, "the House will have impeached the president," Gerhardt said.
Any (or all) of those articles of impeachment, having received the 50%-plus-one affirmative vote, constitute the equivalent of the indictment, which begins the trial in the Senate.
And yet the evidence is ther, per the 1000+ federal prosecutors. IOW, Muellers decision was not based on a lack of evidence, it was based on something else.
Yet over and over the claim is made it was for lack of evidence in spite of the fact there was plenty, or rather, the fact he made no explicit recommendation is taken as an evaluation of the strength of the evidence, when there is no objective evidence that is the case.
The only reason cited by Mueller for the why of his decisions not to make recommendations is that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting president. But he did say Congress could, and the way it was worded, it appears to be a strong hint that is the way it should proceed.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostGood enough. So then Mueller would have been recommending the equivalent of a grand jury hearing on the evidence.
Either way he chose not to, and you and the others are assuming he made that choice for lack of evidence.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou know better, Jimmy. Trump's lawyers never said that. You even started a thread about it, and your claims were thoroughly debunked.
http://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/trump...ot-win-mazars/Last edited by JimL; 11-01-2019, 06:48 PM.
Comment
-
I want JimL, oxmixxmudd, Tass and the other orangeman bad crew to show me in the actual transcript of the phone call(not Adam Schiff's lying "parody"of it) where Trump strong armed or insisted on Quid pro Quo. While you are at it tell me why if that is what happened Ukraine insists it didn't or didn't even know until a month after that aide was being witheld, and then recieved it shortly after he noticed it without having done anything for it.
You are making the claim that is it there something there then show me from the actual transcript not the so called whistleblower's third hand FEELINGS gotten from others on what the phone call was about Feelings are not facts.Last edited by RumTumTugger; 11-01-2019, 06:24 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View PostI want JimL, oxmixxmudd, Tass and the other orangeman bad crew to show me in the actual transcript of the phone call(not Adam Schiff's lying "parody"of it) where Trump strong armed or insisted on Quid pro Quo. While you are at it tell me why if that is what happened Ukraine insists it didn't or didn't even know until a month after that aide was being witheld, and then recieved it shortly after he noticed it without having done anything for it.
You are making the claim that is it there something there then show me from the actual transcript not the so called whistleblower's third hand FEELINGS gotten from others on what the phone call was about Feelings are not facts.Last edited by JimL; 11-01-2019, 06:50 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostCorrect. Like Ken Starr did.
Please stop telling me what I think, Jim, because that's simply not true. This is one of the things that makes trying to have a discussion with you so frustrating.
And you cutting of discussion over me simply making inferences that implied by almost every word you speak is one of the things that makes having discussions with you so frustrating.
Really, it's so bad that if yousaid 'I like like the sea' you would then throw a fit and stop the conversation if later I said in response to that 'CP likes the water'Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-01-2019, 06:45 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostTrumps Lawyer argued that the President was not only above the law, but above even investigation so long as he is in office.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, 04-21-2024, 01:11 PM
|
68 responses
407 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 02:58 AM | ||
Started by seer, 04-19-2024, 02:09 PM
|
10 responses
149 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 06:09 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, 04-19-2024, 01:25 PM
|
2 responses
57 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:09 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 04-19-2024, 08:53 AM
|
21 responses
181 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
Today, 02:15 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
37 responses
269 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 07:47 PM
|
Comment