(10-23-2019, 05:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: I don't think the media is emphasizing enough that the inquiry consists of three house committees. each of the three committees has Republican members, and each of them by themselves has the power to subpoena.
there have been Republican members asking questions during each of these depositions.
so the powers are legitimately derived, and the Republicans have an opportunity to participate in the process.
if Matt Gaetz wanted to participate he should have got himself appointed to a different committee.
If you think this is all a waste of time by Democrats that's your right. Vote accordingly in the next election. But what the Democrats are doing is totally within the rules and precedents.
That's just NOT TRUE. Either you're lying or you don't know what the heck your talking about. EVERY IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY has started with a formal vote in the house of representatives. EVERY ONE granted the minatory subpoena power, and every one Granted the President due process rights in the house. The president should have the right to have his lawyer present at every one of these depositions. He should have the right to call witnesses and produce evidence. That was afforded to Nixxon and Clinton. The idea that you have witnesses come in, testify in secret, and then have their testimonies selectively leaked is a political stunt by the group of people who got BURNED by Bob Mueller embarrassing himself on national television.
Trying to bring a foreign government into the employ of a US political party is not. The Democrats are accusing Trump of this, and it is very serious. As they are the majority party in the house right now, they deserve an opportunity to do a thorough investigation so that they may prove this, or fail to prove it if the evidence is not there.
Evidence? What @#$^ Evidence.
For everyone watching at home, through Inuendo the Democrats in the house are making two basic accusations. 1.) An extortive act. In order to prove that there was an extortive act you have to prove two things. a.) that the subject of the extorted act felt pressured and b.) that the external pressure they felt is something that a reasonable person could see as threatening. in this case THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAYS There WAS NO PRESSURE BROUGHT TO BEAR! Period. End of story. go home. Not to mention the fact, that the alleged leverage wasn't even known to the subject until a month after the alleged incident.
2.) That the President pursuing an investigation into the Biden's or Burisma holding represents a CORRUPT INTENT. Fine. In order to show that then you have to demonstrate that there was ZERO EVIDENCE to support the reasonable suspicion that the Bidens or Burisma were involved in illegal, illicit, or corrupt acts. The State Department inspector General already delivered Giuliani's investigative work by which he demonstrates that there are sworn witnesses, including the former prosecutor general of Ukraine, that state that Biden DID IN FACT seek his firing to protect his son and his business interest. Further, the owner of Burisma Holdings received 1billion dollars plus in Tax Payer dollars. This while his corruption was so well known that he was barred from having a visa in the united states of America and the British were freezing his assets. But that Biden, he's Fighting CORRUPTION.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
