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.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Are you OK, Jim, seeing as this incredibly large dose of reality has come crashing down on your head?
    Nah. He's still doing his projecting bit. We'll know that reality has crashed down when his charges become particularly wild-eyed and specious. He's predictable like that.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
      Extortion: The practice of obtaining something through force or threat. Yeah, I think that fits, MM.



      Whether told explicitly or not, "I need you to do us a favor though," they knew and made it clear that they knew.

      Actually there is. For one thing the president didn't hold up the appropriated aid to Ukraine in the previous years of his administration, he only held it up in 2019 after Biden announced his candidacy.
      You're begging the question. There was no threat. No pressure. No evidence the President was motivated by personal gain. You're allowing your preferred conclusion to bias your interpretation of the facts.
      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


      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
        The difference is not difficult to understand. Like I said, establishing motives is secondary to first establishing wrongdoing.

        Sorry but establishing motive is part of establishing wrong doing. Still not valid in this case Probable Cause is the issue here is there enough Probable Cause to ask for a for it to be looked into I've listed 4 and you did not dispute them. The Biden deal still looks very shady.

        So withholding aid - are there legitimate reasons for doing it? Of course. So the first step is to find out if it was legitimate.

        Biden - threatened to withhold aid unless Shokin was fired.

        Circumstances - anti corruption reforms highly prioritised in international support of post revolution Ukraine. Shokin and his office criticised for protecting oligarchs and obstruction investigations by Ukrainians. Criticism is supported by international community who call for his removal.

        US 1 billion loan guarantee granted to Ukraine who had promised to clean up Shokins office.

        Reason - shokin not fired.

        Biden threatens to take back loan guarantee. US congress issue bipartisan letter to Ukraine calling for shokin to be removed. IMF threatens to withhold 40billion. Ukrainians stage protests calling for shokins removal. Ukraine legislators vote to remove Shokin. US loan guarantee is provided.

        Bidens threat surely contributed to Shokins removal but it was a sustained international effort to do it. Legitimate due to widespread support, advancement of public interest and consistent to official foreign policy.

        Trump - withheld aid

        Circumstances - Ukraine elects new president.

        Reason - not given

        Can’t determine if it’s legitimate if reason is unknown so consider if there’s any legitimate reasons for the hold.

        Preconditions confirmed as met. Officials given no explanation despite repeated requests to Trump asking for release. If there’s no obvious legitimate reason or reason given is weak or nonexistent then cause for investigation.
        Did your even read my post?

        Biden
        Circumstances - Hunter Biden gets a lucrative job on a corrupt Ukrainian gas company with Zero Experience, make lots of money, after Joe is put in charge of negotiating with Ukraine and the gas company.

        Reason - for firing the AG - to stop the investigation on Hunter Biden - AG fired and investigation stopped. Possible Obstruction of congress (In My Post, not disputed by you). The wide spread support came the state department and Biden pushing for the removal. Sokin "Protects" oligarchs by raiding the president of Baresma's house and looking into Hunter. 17 - 17 of the Dems witnesses condemned Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's actions. After Shokin is fired Joe Biden make deal benefitting Baresma.


        Trump

        Situation - New President in Ukraine. That says it will fight Corruption.

        Circumstances - Ukraine is full of corruption. Question on whether Zelensky will follow through with he's promise to fight corruption. Trust but Verify

        Reason - As I stated was the terms to Trump releasing the aid was to make an assessment that Ukraine was working on corruption. I think this is a valid reason You did not disputed, you just ignored it.

        Result - Zelensky make changes to the government to weed out corruption, (without being told the Aid was withheld). several senators and the Vice President had conversations with Zelensky to check his varsity. and the aid was release ahead of the due date.

        It is also key to note that The president Does not need an actual crime to ask it Zelensky could look into Hunter Biden just Probable Cause and I have show that there was a lot of that. and you have never addressed or denied that Probable Cause existed. and remember 17 -17 of the Dems witnesses in the house confirmed that there was Probable Cause to investigate what went on around Hunter Biden.

        So I still don't see where Biden is immune from investigation Just because he's running for president.
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"
        -- Arthur C. Clark

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Don't be such an air head, the charges against the president are not only detailed in the Articles, but the same have been argued throughout the trial. The Articles don't just say "Abuse of power" and "Obstruction of Justice" they go on to give detailed explanation as was explained at trial as well.
          Did you even read the articles on you own or are you taking your leftist handlers word for it? It is not up to us to argue with non existent facts, it is up to you to post those facts. If they are in the articles of impeachment and you read said articles you can find them and post them, if you don't then we can only assume they aren't there and you are a lazy idiot who refuses to think for himself.

          and all you other ANTI Trumpers do not do Jimls homework for him he needs to learn to think for himself not let others do his thinking for him. If he refuses to cite where what he asserts is in the articles then we do not have to believe they are in there.
          Last edited by RumTumTugger; 02-01-2020, 10:59 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
            Did you even read the articles on you own or are you taking your leftist handlers word for it? It is not up to us to argue with non existent facts, it is up to you to post those facts. If they are in the articles of impeachment and you read said articles you can find them and post them, if you don't then we can only assume they aren't there and you are a lazy idiot who refuses to think for himself.

            and all you other ANTI Trumpers do not do Jimls homework for him he needs to learn to think for himself not let others do his thinking for him. If he refuses to cite where what he asserts is in the articles then we do not have to believe they are in there.
            He's just following Shifty Schiff's lead who accused the president of crimes not specified in the indictment and referred to evidence the House didn't have. People keep saying, "This isn't a typical trial," and they're right. If Shifty had pulled that sort of thing in a courtroom, the judge would have immediately tossed the case, and Shifty would be lucky if he didn't spend a night in jail for contempt.
            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


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Then why didn't the incredibly partisan House Democrats charge him with said crimes?



              Nope. Opinion, not fact.
              Because the offense didn't put them there.
              FF, friend, buddy.... please don't throw stones when you're tossing them from your own glass house.
              The most glaring exception being the presence of ACTUAL CRIMES that triggered the Nixon impeachment.
              That's precious.
              The crimes in the articles of impeachment:

              https://sidebarsblog.com/crimes-in-a...s-impeachment/
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                The crimes in the articles of impeachment:

                https://sidebarsblog.com/crimes-in-a...s-impeachment/
                I love how the first heading is .....

                But First: Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

                And it kinda goes downhill from there.

                If there were CRIMES committed, why didn't the incredibly partisan pinhead abusers of power clearly spell them in their articles of impeachment, instead of making everybody play "find Waldo".
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • One of my pastor friends is a pinko commie liberal pastor of a big church in Austin, and he attended a meeting this morning where the liberal talking heads were grumbling about why the impeachment didn't go as planned.

                  His report --- Schiff was a lousy choice because you have one "dishonest egomaniac" trying to take down another "dishonest egomaniac".
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I love how the first heading is .....

                    But First: Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

                    And it kinda goes downhill from there.

                    If there were CRIMES committed, why didn't the incredibly partisan pinhead abusers of power clearly spell them in their articles of impeachment, instead of making everybody play "find Waldo".
                    That's why they kept floating various ideas during the House circus phase like "bribery" and "extortion" only to drop them in favor of the infinitely more nebulous and equally meaningless "abuse of power."

                    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 firstfloor View Post
                      The crimes in the articles of impeachment:

                      https://sidebarsblog.com/crimes-in-a...s-impeachment/


                      Also, from your article...

                      The Articles of Impeachment don’t cite specific federal statutes that the president allegedly violated.


                      So, your article on the "Crimes in the articles of impeachment" has to explain that there weren't really "crimes" per se....

                      That's so precious.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        That's why they kept floating various ideas during the House circus phase like "bribery" and "extortion" only to drop them in favor of the infinitely more nebulous and equally meaningless "abuse of power."
                        Now that it's over, it's a bit amusing. Back then, it was a bit frustrating.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • What Bolton would have testified to will come out any ways. Certainly sooner than later. But then, if witnesses were called, Schiff and Ciaramella could have been put under oath and questioned about their own possible collusion, and the whole Biden mess could be examined.

                          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 Mountain Man View Post
                            You're begging the question. There was no threat. No pressure. No evidence the President was motivated by personal gain. You're allowing your preferred conclusion to bias your interpretation of the facts.
                            All of the evidence points to the contrary as Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murcowski, and now Rubio have all publically admitted. Now their argument is that okay, you got us, yeah he's guilty, but we're not going to convict him anyway. Your argument is that you didn't hear it stated explicitely from out of the Presidents mouth, but that argument doesn't fly based on all the other evidence. Besides that, even if one in his ignorance, or in his complicit attitude, chose to assume Trump knew nothing about what was going on, he should be impeached for being to stupid, ergo unfit for the office.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                              Did you even read the articles on you own or are you taking your leftist handlers word for it? It is not up to us to argue with non existent facts, it is up to you to post those facts. If they are in the articles of impeachment and you read said articles you can find them and post them, if you don't then we can only assume they aren't there and you are a lazy idiot who refuses to think for himself.

                              and all you other ANTI Trumpers do not do Jimls homework for him he needs to learn to think for himself not let others do his thinking for him. If he refuses to cite where what he asserts is in the articles then we do not have to believe they are in there.
                              All you've done is admit that you haven't read the Articles yourself or you'd know better than to ask me to show them to you. You know RTT, you shouldn't be arguing a case that you obviously have no idea of what you're talking about.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                I love how the first heading is .....

                                But First: Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

                                And it kinda goes downhill from there.

                                If there were CRIMES committed, why didn't the incredibly partisan pinhead abusers of power clearly spell them in their articles of impeachment, instead of making everybody play "find Waldo".
                                They did clearly spell them out, they can't help it if you don't understand, or actually refuse to recognize what constitutes bribery/extortion. This is not a criminal trial. The actual crime as applied to impeachment is "Abuse of Power."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X