(01-21-2020, 07:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 07:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The statement of the ukrainian president.... did the law professors explain what exculpatory means?
Who are the ultimate arbiters in a democratic republic?
Voters, but districts are gerrymandered and the deck is stacked against third parties and for incumbents.
(01-21-2020, 07:07 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]No he didnt.
The transcript of the call itself negates the major claims of the whistleblower.
Please cite the parts of volkers testimony that override the factual evidence that defense aid was never mentioned on the phone call ( not 8 times).
Lol. You miss the obvious so easily.
Shaking my head... Can someone please explain to him why you can't gerrymander a senate seat...
(01-22-2020, 01:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 07:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Voters, but districts are gerrymandered and the deck is stacked against third parties and for incumbents.
Lol. You miss the obvious so easily.
Shaking my head... Can someone please explain to him why you can't gerrymander a senate seat...
Senate is not the only thing that people vote for.
Senators need people to agree with them from the White House and the House of Representatives before they can get anything done.
And in any case the founders gave senators six-year terms so that they wouldn't have to worry as much about reelection. And the founders didn't want the senators accountable to the voters at all, you'll remember.
You're right mike
Forget democracy, public opinion, the free press etc. The evil Republicans can do whatever they want. As such there's no need for real evidence or due process. Let's just remove the president because u dont like his tweets. Evidence smevidence. He eats two scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie. Hes gotta go!@@@@@@@
We should repeal the 17th anyway, make the Senate accountable to the States again.
After a straight party line vote to impeach in the House it's comical that people like Mikesez are now going to devry a straight party line vote in the Senate to acquit. I mean, you can't write this kind of humor in Hollywood. And he remains completely
trolltastic self-delusional the entire time.
.gif "Laughing")
(01-22-2020, 09:27 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]We should repeal the 17th anyway, make the Senate accountable to the States again.
After a straight party line vote to impeach in the House it's comical that people like Mikesez are now going to devry a straight party line vote in the Senate to acquit. I mean, you can't write this kind of humor in Hollywood. And he remains completely trolltastic self-delusional the entire time.
I agree that the Senators should be accountable to either a governor or a state legislature. But state legislatures are terribly gerrymandered as well. And organized in a way to lock out third parties. To me, that's the bigger problem.
In any case I wasn't decrying anything. I'm actually OK with a party line vote to acquit, as long as they actually hear the evidence and let both teams of lawyers interview the witnesses under oath.
Schiff said it was imperative to remove the President quickly because he asked for foreign interference once, and if he got away with it, he'd do it again. However, we know that the aid was eventually released and that Ukraine did not end up interfering. If Republicans look at that and say, "let's see if he tries it again.." that's fine by me. Maybe Trump won't try it again. But at least be honest about what Trump did.
If we could abolish the two-party system we have that would be great.
It divides. Just like Washington said it would.
(01-22-2020, 08:25 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]You're right mike
Forget democracy, public opinion, the free press etc. The evil Republicans can do whatever they want. As such there's no need for real evidence or due process. Let's just remove the president because u dont like his tweets. Evidence smevidence. He eats two scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie. Hes gotta go!@@@@@@@
Exactly why I'm in favor of witness testimony, OMB docs and White House docs. Evidence that may or may not prove guilt, but evidence nonetheless.
(01-22-2020, 11:11 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 08:25 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]You're right mike
Forget democracy, public opinion, the free press etc. The evil Republicans can do whatever they want. As such there's no need for real evidence or due process. Let's just remove the president because u dont like his tweets. Evidence smevidence. He eats two scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie. Hes gotta go!@@@@@@@
Exactly why I'm in favor of witness testimony, OMB docs and White House docs. Evidence that may or may not prove guilt, but evidence nonetheless.
Yeh. To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence. Let's just keep digging until we find something. Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....
Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?
(01-22-2020, 01:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 11:11 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly why I'm in favor of witness testimony, OMB docs and White House docs. Evidence that may or may not prove guilt, but evidence nonetheless.
Yeh. To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence. Let's just keep digging until we find something. Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....
Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?
Notice my bold statement? I can underline it for you if you like. Regardless, I appreciate the deflections, JJ.
My approach: There's a smoking gun...hell, lots of smoking guns - so you dig for information. Evidence roots it all out. Why withhold if you're clearly innocent? Trump's words in Davos this morning, taking a pre-victory victory lap didn't help: "They (democrats) don't have any material, we (republicans) have all the material."
If there's clear evidence the WH has that Biden acted corruptly, I'd love to see that too - I've gone on record saying that I don't care for Biden, nor do I trust his leadership. FOIA seems to be getting things in piecemeal, so that's a start. It helps paint a clearer picture so nobody needs a
time turner
I'll ask again: what legitimate reason does the White House have for not releasing OMB docs and/or blocking witness testimony? What legitimate reason does the Senate have for not wanting to see/hear that evidence? Both were requested in House proceedings, but the withholding only added to the passing of the 2nd article (obstruction of congress). These aren't partisan questions.
(01-22-2020, 01:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 11:11 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly why I'm in favor of witness testimony, OMB docs and White House docs. Evidence that may or may not prove guilt, but evidence nonetheless.
Yeh. To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence. Let's just keep digging until we find something. Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....
Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?
Executive privilege is nebulous, but similar to attorney-client privilege. So, "I want you to break the law for me" is not a privileged communication. The Impoundment Control Act was violated, and possibly the Federal Elections Act too. Questions and subpoenas specific to those matters would not fall under executive privilege.
(01-22-2020, 01:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 01:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeh. To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence. Let's just keep digging until we find something. Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....
Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?
Executive privilege is nebulous, but similar to attorney-client privilege. So, "I want you to break the law for me" is not a privileged communication. The Impoundment Control Act was violated, and possibly the Federal Elections Act too. Questions and subpoenas specific to those matters would not fall under executive privilege.
Childish.
Deadline: Sept 30
Aid released: Sept 12th
If you're going to b.s. me try harder.
That's why the ICA wasnt ab article of impeachment. Please keep up.
(01-22-2020, 02:45 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 01:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Executive privilege is nebulous, but similar to attorney-client privilege. So, "I want you to break the law for me" is not a privileged communication. The Impoundment Control Act was violated, and possibly the Federal Elections Act too. Questions and subpoenas specific to those matters would not fall under executive privilege.
Childish.
Deadline: Sept 30
Aid released: Sept 12th
If you're going to b.s. me try harder.
That's why the ICA wasnt ab article of impeachment. Please keep up.
The deadlines vary based on the reason for the delay.
OMB offered no reason at the time.
GAO did their own analysis and concluded that they went past the relevant deadline.
(01-22-2020, 04:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 02:45 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Childish.
Deadline: Sept 30
Aid released: Sept 12th
If you're going to b.s. me try harder.
That's why the ICA wasnt ab article of impeachment. Please keep up.
The deadlines vary based on the reason for the delay.
OMB offered no reason at the time.
GAO did their own analysis and concluded that they went past the relevant deadline.
Not true. Fiscal end of year is fiscal end of year. Sept 30th is sept 30th. Try again.
GAO... lol.
(01-22-2020, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I'll ask again: what legitimate reason does the White House have for not releasing OMB docs and/or blocking witness testimony? What legitimate reason does the Senate have for not wanting to see/hear that evidence? Both were requested in House proceedings, but the withholding only added to the passing of the 2nd article (obstruction of congress). These aren't partisan questions.
Two words: "Brett Kavanaugh"
Republicans let the Democrats call witnesses, and the witnesses were not credible. But that doesn't mean witnesses shouldn't be called now.
(01-22-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 01:17 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeh. To heck with executive privilege, due process, presumption of innocence. Let's just keep digging until we find something. Let's ignore the clearly exculpatory statements by the alleged targets of extortion or the clear evidence that joe biden acted corruptly....
Notice how this zeal for investigations never extends to the left?
Notice my bold statement? I can underline it for you if you like. Regardless, I appreciate the deflections, JJ.
It's not a deflection. You are talking about potentially piercing confidentiality. You don't do that based on may or may not. You do that based on probable cause to believe that it has evidence about a crime that has been committed. You don't have that in this case.
My approach: There's a smoking gun...hell, lots of smoking guns - so you dig for information. Evidence roots it all out. Why withhold if you're clearly innocent? Trump's words in Davos this morning, taking a pre-victory victory lap didn't help: "They (democrats) don't have any material, we (republicans) have all the material."
If there's clear evidence the WH has that Biden acted corruptly, I'd love to see that too - I've gone on record saying that I don't care for Biden, nor do I trust his leadership. FOIA seems to be getting things in piecemeal, so that's a start. It helps paint a clearer picture so nobody needs a time turner
I'll ask again: what legitimate reason does the White House have for not releasing OMB docs and/or blocking witness testimony? What legitimate reason does the Senate have for not wanting to see/hear that evidence? Both were requested in House proceedings, but the withholding only added to the passing of the 2nd article (obstruction of congress). These aren't partisan questions.
Better question, what is the legitimate reason for the inquiry? The Democrats are making three basic accusations.
1.) The president of the United States used public funds to extort the Ukrainians. The statements by the Ukrainian officials, including but not limited to President Zellensky, that the Ukrainians did not know before 8-29-2019 (Open source reporting in the media) is completely and totally exculpatory. It has not been contradicted by any one of the witnesses called during the entirety of the house inquiry.
2.) The President of the United States obstructed congress by invoking executive privilege. This isn't even a @#$()ING thing.
3.) That the president of the united states violated the ICA by withholding aid to Ukraine. The deadline for the release was 9-30-2019. The aid was released on 9-12-2019. Not to mention that even if he did, Congress would take the administration to court and have the funds released & or re-appropriated. That's the way that the system is designed.
There is no credible assertion that a document at the OMB or any other agency is going to provide communications between the Trump administrations and the Ukrainians or that they will magically delay release of the aid beyond 9-30-2019. Compliance in the face of your opponent weakness lends false credibility to a witch hunt. The Trump administration gave Robert Mueller and his team over a million and a half documents, they let them interview and nearly bankrupt anyone they want, up to and including 30 hours of testimony from the White house council. For his efforts? They threw his campaign manager in solitary confinement because he refused to lie about him, they ransacked his attorneys office based on a debunked theory of campaign finance that the former head of the FEC shot down. And when they found out that he wasn't guilty of anything they wrote a two page hyperbolic fiction based on a theory of obstruction of justice that SCOTUS has specifically shot down in the past. The president of the united states released the Transcript of a phone call with a foreign power. That alone is a massive affront to the office of the president and could have a negative affect on future communications between potus and his foreign counterparts. But he had to do it and it clearly proves his innocence.
After you demonstrate in plain text that you never talked about the election or foreign aid with Zellensky then there is no PROVING YOU INNOCENCE (which he shouldn't have to). It's playing into the most disgraceful witch hunt in this countries history.
(01-22-2020, 07:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2020, 06:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Two words: "Brett Kavanaugh"
Republicans let the Democrats call witnesses, and the witnesses were not credible. But that doesn't mean witnesses shouldn't be called now.
And that witness needlessly destroyed a distinguished public servant.
As for the Democrats, they didn't let us call witnesses in the house inquiry... "Well now it is my turn, wise @#$" (Yes, that's from GB 84)