(12-15-2019, 04:53 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2019, 04:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Okay let's say that you're right. let's say that that was exactly what they were doing, and it was the only thing they were doing.
Was that permissible? Was that ok?
What do you think smart guy? Let's see you maneuver your way into shilling for the Dems (as usual).
I have my own opinion about what is right and wrong in this situation, but I am asking for yours.
(12-14-2019, 01:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2019, 12:09 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Trump involved the judges, the dems called it obstruction.
The Constitution and the Federalist papers say that the House of Representatives behaves like a grand jury in case of suspected presidential misconduct. If any of us is ever asked to answer questions at a grand jury, we could be charged with obstruction or contempt for refusing to appear, or refusing to answer.
(12-14-2019, 12:59 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Al Green reads even a restaurant menu through a race filter.
You're not wrong.
He chose to get a ruling. Of course he could have pulled an Obama and claimed executive privilege. I wish he would have personally. Watching the dems collective heads explode would have been priceless.
(12-16-2019, 11:12 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2019, 01:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
The Constitution and the Federalist papers say that the House of Representatives behaves like a grand jury in case of suspected presidential misconduct. If any of us is ever asked to answer questions at a grand jury, we could be charged with obstruction or contempt for refusing to appear, or refusing to answer.
You're not wrong.
He chose to get a ruling. Of course he could have pulled an Obama and claimed executive privilege. I wish he would have personally. Watching the dems collective heads explode would have been priceless.
They are claiming executive privilege. Just not using those words. If the President claimed executive privilege it would have ended the same way, with a long court case and multiple appeals.
Anyone see Nadler trying to close the elevator door to avoid questions, but I guess he kept pushing the open button and it wouldn't close.
The ruling class is amazing!
(12-16-2019, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 11:12 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]He chose to get a ruling. Of course he could have pulled an Obama and claimed executive privilege. I wish he would have personally. Watching the dems collective heads explode would have been priceless.
They are claiming executive privilege. Just not using those words. If the President claimed executive privilege it would have ended the same way, with a long court case and multiple appeals.
Do you honestly believe that?
(12-16-2019, 12:07 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]They are claiming executive privilege. Just not using those words. If the President claimed executive privilege it would have ended the same way, with a long court case and multiple appeals.
Do you honestly believe that?
What do you think would have happened next if Trump claimed executive privilege?
(12-16-2019, 02:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 01:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think would have happened next if Trump claimed executive privilege?
![[Image: giphy.webp]](https://i.giphy.com/media/F458eKi7tpSqQ/giphy.webp)
Followed by
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/d54d6f9fa54534296230dd40a561c282/tenor.gif)
Is that different from what actually happened?
(12-16-2019, 03:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 02:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]
Followed by
Is that different from what actually happened?
That's you and your Dem buddies every day since the 2016 election.
(12-16-2019, 01:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 12:07 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Do you honestly believe that?
What do you think would have happened next if Trump claimed executive privilege?
The current hysteria x100. More lies, half truths and misdirections.
Riddle me this. Why if the public opinion is increasingly not in favor of this is the democratic party doubling down?
(12-17-2019, 12:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (12-16-2019, 01:33 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think would have happened next if Trump claimed executive privilege?
The current hysteria x100. More lies, half truths and misdirections.
Riddle me this. Why if the public opinion is increasingly not in favor of this is the democratic party doubling down?
I don't think public opinion is moving much. 45-50% of folks want the trial to take place and end with removal. Hasn't changed much for a few months.
Anyhow I think you're all missing the point. Trump told Bolton and others not to testify. He didn't use the words "executive privilege" but the result is the same: these guys won't testify until the supreme Court orders them to testify. Whenever they finally get around to hearing the case and writing their 200 page long opinion.
(12-17-2019, 12:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2019, 12:31 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]The current hysteria x100. More lies, half truths and misdirections.
Riddle me this. Why if the public opinion is increasingly not in favor of this is the democratic party doubling down?
I don't think public opinion is moving much. 45-50% of folks want the trial to take place and end with removal. Hasn't changed much for a few months.
Anyhow I think you're all missing the point. Trump told Bolton and others not to testify. He didn't use the words "executive privilege" but the result is the same: these guys won't testify until the supreme Court orders them to testify. Whenever they finally get around to hearing the case and writing their 200 page long opinion.
The USSC blew article 2 out of the water yesterday. Trump doesn't have acquiesce to subpoena from the House. Lol, Get [BLEEP].
The House interviewed a bunch of diplomats who said that it looked to them as if Trump wanted Ukraine's government to inject a negative story about Biden into the US press while not actually caring if they followed through with punishing any corruption. Did Trump actually say that? Pompeo or Giuliani would know. The lower level diplomats also testified that Bolton tried to keep his distance from this, calling it a "drug deal". Why did Bolton feel that way?
Why wouldn't you want those two questions answered?
(12-17-2019, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The House interviewed a bunch of diplomats who said that it looked to them as if Trump wanted Ukraine's government to inject a negative story about Biden into the US press while not actually caring if they followed through with punishing any corruption. Did Trump actually say that? Pompeo or Giuliani would know. The lower level diplomats also testified that Bolton tried to keep his distance from this, calling it a "drug deal". Why did Bolton feel that way?
Why wouldn't you want those two questions answered?
This right here says it all. You are advocating this entire circus on conjecture and zero evidence all because you despise the man in question.
As for your statement that the public opinion shifting away from the democrats what polls are you watching? A democrat is even switching party affiliation over this farce.
(12-17-2019, 01:06 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2019, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The House interviewed a bunch of diplomats who said that it looked to them as if Trump wanted Ukraine's government to inject a negative story about Biden into the US press while not actually caring if they followed through with punishing any corruption. Did Trump actually say that? Pompeo or Giuliani would know. The lower level diplomats also testified that Bolton tried to keep his distance from this, calling it a "drug deal". Why did Bolton feel that way?
Why wouldn't you want those two questions answered?
This right here says it all. You are advocating this entire circus on conjecture and zero evidence all because you despise the man in question.
As for your statement that the public opinion shifting away from the democrats what polls are you watching? A democrat is even switching party affiliation over this farce.
I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.
You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive. if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?
You can't fault to the House prosecutors for trying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.
Let's stop clowning ourselves. The truth is out, and the President was not proven to have done a single thing impeachable. Not unexpected, given the facts we had both before and after the shampeachment effort.
It's over. The voters will not forget, and the left keeps digging it's own political grave deeper and deeper by the minute.
Intellectually honest folks would self reflect and self improve at this stage. A lot of good, smart people have been fooled. All that anger is misdirected at the President they hate, but would be better served directed at the politicians and media who took them for fools.
(12-17-2019, 01:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2019, 01:06 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]This right here says it all. You are advocating this entire circus on conjecture and zero evidence all because you despise the man in question.
As for your statement that the public opinion shifting away from the democrats what polls are you watching? A democrat is even switching party affiliation over this farce.
I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.
You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive. if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?
You can't fault to the House prosecutors for etrying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.
They have the transcriot. Nothing else is needed.
(12-17-2019, 03:31 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2019, 01:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.
You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive. if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?
You can't fault to the House prosecutors for etrying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.
They have the transcriot. Nothing else is needed.
Truth, and the House charade did nothing but back that truth.