# Impeachment of Trump...



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a serious question that needs to be asked.

Lets say articles of impeachment get brought up against Trump.... for what ever reason. Even if it is on party lines... or no real fact based anything....

Should all the people in congress that have come out since 2017 and said "Impeach him".... Should they be allowed to even vote?

I mean there are a lot of Congress people who have since Trumps day 1 in office have said they will work to impeach him..... Pelosi, Schiff, AOC, Omar, Waters, Swalwell, Green, etc.... Should these people be recused or asked to be recused??? Should they even get a vote?

These are people who before even any evidence was produced or charges drawn stated they will impeach the president.

Honestly.... isn't this bias? Should they be allowed to vote. Because it seems they are predetermined and are not taking a clear look at it. That facts might not matter to them. Is this how we want our country ran???

Same goes for anyone on the Republican side who states something like... I will never vote to impeach Trump. Should they be allowed to vote??

I mean jurors, judges, etc. Get thrown out or taken off trials if they have any inkling of bias or predetermined facts before a case.

This is an honest question and shouldn't be partisan. It goes along with Due process and the foundation of our judicial system or our country's belief of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".... Because some of these people think he is guilty before he was even in office. Same goes for people who will cry he is innocent before seeing the facts.

But like I am asking.... should people who showed bias and wanting impeachment from day 1 when he took office.... should they be allowed to vote on impeachment?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I agree with you, any of them that have shown bias on this matter, for or against, should be recused. But, that ain't going to happen.

On a lighter note, seems the Dems have released their articles of impeachment. :laugh: :laugh: :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Also there was a news clip out where AOC basiclly just said this is about swaying public opinion on trump for the 2020 elections.... So is house dem's weaponizing impeachment to help gain votes?? If this is even remotely the case it is scary. Because will this happen year after year when people don't agree with the president.... no matter what political affiliation.

I hate to use Fox talking mouth terms... but it is starting to look like it.

BTW... I had to turn off Tucker last night because he sounded so much like Maddow it wasn't even funny. He is getting worse and worse by the day with his opinion he is more like Hannity than every before. oke: Those two are like Maddow, Lemon, Seitzer, Cumo&#8230;.. way way too slanted.

Here is another little humor cartoon a friend sent me today...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The idiots in the Republican party are now saying it might be a good idea to have the Senate have the impeachment trial starting January to keep the 6 Democratic Senators running for office off the campaign trail. Typical Republican garbage. Lemmings that will do ANYTHING to get the Clown Prince elected again. uke: uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Lemmings that will do ANYTHING to get the Clown Prince elected again.


 :rollin: The democrats are doing a better job of electing Trump in 2020 than the republicans could ever do. oke: I wish the republicans would get some guts and be half the fighters the democrats are. The democrats are like viciouse street fighters, and the republicans are like the nerds on the high school drama team.

Ken which of those six senators has a chance anyway? Don't keep them off the campaign trail, we want people to hear them and know they are insane.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry Plainsman.....4 years of Trump is more than enough. And I thing Klobochar would make a really good president. If Dems are so bad why is Trump behind all of them in all polls I have seen?

Dems won't win in 2020. Trump will lose it all on his own. How long will it take for farm country to put up with his loser trade policies? His foreign policy is a disaster.

Trump will say anything .Even smearing a career diplomat serving since Reagan. 33 years......This guy needs to shut the hell up. :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken do you realize that Obama fired ALL diplomats the day he took office? All of them.

Also the polls make me :rollin: . I remember the polls said Hillary would win by a landslide.

So far the democrats look dumber every day. Another sham is falling apart. Even though the democrats are running the impeachment like communist China would do it. They are grasping at straws and now complaining about Trumps tweet.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Not what I saw.....A bunch of REPUBLICANS at the hearing CONGRAGULATED and Thanked her on her thirty three years of service. Including through EIGHT years of Qbama. Doesn't sound like Obama fired her.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I suppose she was the diplomat he put in.

Can anyone answer this. Is Yovanovitch a strong woman as the democrats describe her, or a wallflower that withers with criticism as they portray her? You can't have it both ways. 
It's interesting that like their star witness yesterday this woman had no first hand knowledge. She was gone months before these phone calls.

It's also interesting that Obama withheld aid from the Ukrain, and Trump gave aid with no strings attached. The democrats are liars and fools. Trump isn't allowed to defend himself, the whistleblower is so far removed from the evidence he doesn't legally meet the requirement to be called a whistleblower, republicans are banned from the secret meetings etc. What should this be called? It should be called congressional tyranny.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No.....she started her 33 years of government service when Reagan was president not Obama.. A REPUBLICAN president.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> No.....she started her 33 years of government service when Reagan was president not Obama.. A REPUBLICAN president.


She was employed by the State Department, but was she ambassador all those years? They want us to believe she lost her job and oh my goodness she may starve. The truth is her salary didn't change, she still works for the State Department. The head of the Ukraine was complaining about her. She was recalled.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Stating a political appointee is ineffective, removing them from their job and reassigning them is now a crime? Wasn't aware of that precedent.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)




----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I was gone for a few days on a handicap hunt with my brother....

But back now..

1. Ken... It is looking as of now that this whole impeachment thing in the House is totally political and trying to hurt Trumps presidential run in 2020. So why wouldn't the Senate do the same.... remember... What comes around goes around. Which I hope that isn't the reason why the Senate would do the "trial". I think they should do the Trial to get all of the evidence out on the table. Not let what is happening in the House. Schiff is only leaking what he wants, he is not allowing all of the questions to be answered by witnesses, he is censuring Republicans from asking questions and witnesses from answering them (that is why the Stefanik read Schiff tweets, Schiff wouldn't allow her line of questioning), etc.

2. Yovanovitch testified and talked about "bullying" or what ever by the president. Like mentioned is she just upset she lost her job? Again not saying she didn't do good or bad. But Presidents hire and fire Ambassadors all the time. Some kick them out ASAP once a president takes office. But with what is being investigated by the DOJ with Ukraine.... I can see why the president wanted to fire all who worked in the Ukraine.

3. I agree that if Trump loses the 2020 election... it is all on his own doing. Because right now the more and more people I talk with (some voted dem) said that they don't like any of the Dem's running and think what now is going on in the House is total BS.

4. Farmers and Trade deals..... Well there is one waiting to be voted on in the House that will greatly help the USA farmers... yet it wont get a vote. It is already signed by Mexico and Canada and waiting US to follow thru. All the farmers I know are ****** that it is sitting there waiting and being held hostage by Pelosi. It is sending more USA product to these countries (milk and grains), it is lowering the tarrifs that are placed on these product in Mexico and Canada, etc. Then let alone the deal with Japan who will buy more small grains. Also the deal with Europe and them buying more small grains. Also the possible deal or hopeful of a deal with China. They also like the tariffs being placed on some of the South American countries and their AG products. So if you really want to look into it.... Trump has been good for the farmers... it is our House of Reps and Senators who are failing them. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-d ... um=twitter

So again.... what I was worried about is happening.

When Schiff releases transcripts he is doing it piecemeal and only to make the president look bad. This isn't due process! This isn't a fair hearing! This is all politically motivated to ruin the 2020 run by the president! If you don't think so they why isn't full transcripts being releases? Why only trying to show a negative light on the President?

If it was a fair hearing and people can read all of what was said behind closed doors and what not. During the public hearing the Republicans could use those depositions to question... yet they are denied this by Schiff. But what is going on is people trying to drive a narrative. Which party is using impeachment as a political weapon???

edit:

Now Schiff and Vindman both say they don't know who the WB is and yet Schiff wont let Vindman answer a question about who he talked to in the Intel Community. So who is lying about knowledge of the WB?? Again I don't think at this point the WB should be identified.... because all of this is showing the president is innocent.... Everyone cant name an impeachable offense, they cant state quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, etc. They only offer opinion, assumptions, presumptions, etc. So no need for the WB..... but it could come if the Dem's keep pushing and pushing or changing what they "THINK" the president did. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have watched the proceedings, and then I watch the mainstream news. I scratch my head :homer: and wonder what were they watching? They couldn't be watching the same proceedings I was watching. The media is complicit in this hoax. Go to the internet, or FOX news, and if you don't trust them watch the proceedings. As an American citizen we owe at least that much to the nation we live in, and yes we owe it to the president no matter which party is in power, and no matter who the president is. If not for this country for our own integrity. At least then we don't remain ignorant and attack whoever is in office simply because our party of choice attacks them.

One thing is extremely clear and that is Schiff is a liar. He is also obstructing justice by the questions he stops them from answering. There is no search for truth, but an attempt to avoid the truth.

If you want to know who the real criminal is there is no better evidence than right from the horses mouth.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is Swalwell questioning Mr. Morrison and Volker.

Look how he tries to interject or put words in the mouth of Morrison and Volker. He tries to tell Morrison that Trumps "orders" were to investigate Bieden's&#8230;. yet Morrison said that wasn't an objective.

This is the issue and not fact finding. oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The testimony last night from Volker and Morrison said that Trump was worried about Corruption in the Ukraine across the board. Not just look into "BIDEN". So again.... is that an impeachable offense? Also all of the witnesses still stated..... no "bribery", no "quid pro quo", no "extortion", etc.

Now I read where Sondland says "everyone knows and quip pro quo" is the headline of the Bloomberg article. But when you start reading it is about Burisma and the 2016 Elections.... again exactly what the DOJ is still investigating. :thumb:

I am still honestly think that the Dem party pushed Biden into throwing his hat into the presidential ring just so they could try this angle of impeachment or to hurt Trump.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Morrison and Volker both testified:
1. Vindman has in the past not gone thru the proper chain of command
2. Both Morrison and Volker had issues with Vindman's judgement
3. People before these two had concerns about Vindman judgement at times
4. Morrison testified that others had concerned that Vindman would look for information outside of his lane.
5. Morrison testified that Colleagues worried Vindman was leaking information.
6. Morrison testified he went to a Lawyer because he was worried that the July 25th call would get leaked and be used as a weapon against the president.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The main question of Sondland is to ask if all of the investigations have to deal with the wide spread corruption that was going on in the past in the Ukraine.... ie: 2016 Elections (Ukraine tried to hurt trump it is documented), the DNC Server, Burisma, Crowdstrike, etc. All of this stuff was in the past and the newly elected president said he wanted to "clean up" corruption and to "drain the swamp" in the Ukraine. So is this whole conversation about this or was it about 2020 election. There is a huge difference. And if a past elected official is apart of the corruption we need to know. It just so happens that past official is now running for president. Remember people brought up dirt and tried to get trump impeached on his past...:bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Debunking the whole Bloomberg piece....

Sondland even has testified it was his "presumption" or he "assumed". Not facts but opinions. oke: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> "I have no reason to doubt their accounts," Sondland will say in his opening statement. "I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended."


Directly from sondland today.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sondland directly just told Schiff..... the president on a call wanted NOTHING! Sondland stated he was hearing rumbling and conflicting reports around him and directly asked the president what did he want..... Trump said... NOTHING have President of the Ukraine do the right thing. :bop: :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sondland just testified that trump never talked to him about security assistance....

So again all opinion at this time.

So now will the Dem's or Schiff move the goal posts again... now will it be about a meeting? Or will they change it from bribery to _________?

They will have to wait for a new poll to come out for a new buzz word. oke: :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sondland says everything is presumption and assuming about his testimony today.

So again.... No facts!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When I think the democrats Can t get anymore idiotic they prove me wrong. They are out of their mind if they let this get to the Senate where hearsay will not allow 95% of previous testimony and will allow republicans to ask any questions they want.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

None of this is about what really happened, it is designed to smear Trump's 2020 campaign in the hopes that whatever buffoon they run has half a chance. They need to dupe enough people into believing they have something other than smoke and mirrors.

Personally I think it's not going to work, but in this day and age, with the number of morons out there that believe everything the mainstream media feeds them, who knows.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So now back to my original topic on this thread....

So last night at the debate many of the canidates called Trump: A Criminal, He should be impeached, etc.

Should these people be allowed to vote on impeachment? Remember many of them called for it before any facts, witnesses, testimony, etc have been collected. Should these people be allowed to vote? I honestly think this is an issue. Because it is the same as a jury.... the ones who have preconceived idea's are thrown out as jurors. I also will say the same to anyone who was saying.... Trump is innocent, never done anything wrong, etc.... before any evidence, testimony, etc has been presented.

But it just shows you how people just hate him because he isn't a normal politician. :beer:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I think the Dems have backed themselves into a corner. They have miscalculated the effectiveness of a smear campaign. Their constituents want more than that and if they fail at this attempt of impeachment may loose the faith of their voters and entrench Trump supporters. I don't care for some of the things he does but if the Dems win I'm buying stock in lube cause everyone in this country is going to be bending over and taking it from behind.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I forgot this little bit of knowledge...

If people think this is a fair process. Schiff on Tuesday night after a long day of questioning (ended at 10 pm). Told the Republicans on the committee or doing this hearing that if they wanted to use a certain transcript that they could view it after 10 pm go look at it to use in the next day questioning. So he gave them less than 12 hours to look at it and prepare questions for the next day. Is that a fair process? Remember that the Republicans can only look at these materials with Dem staff available and one at a time :bop:

Seems fair and due process doesn't it..... uke:

Yet with out that transcript they totally showed how this is still a sham. :bop: :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I just watched a bit again...talk about leading witnesses.... Schiff asked the witness who previously stated he only heard portions of a phone conversation of which the content was unclear if he had read the transcript ( to refresh his memory) and what his conclusions are about that conversation. This is Paramount to witness tampering. Giving them the details of a conversation they otherwise would not have been able to accurately understand. Interpretations after the fact really are not eyewitness evidence.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

yep...&#8230;

Just like what Swalwell did. Puts words in their mouths or in the closing remarks by the Representatives they will put in their "spin" on what the witness said even if it is opposite of what they said.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Today so far....

Holmes and Hill testified that they basically upset by the direction of the policy in Ukraine.

It is the same stuff... assumptions and presumptions. The listening in on a call in a crowded area across the table from sondland&#8230;.. assumed that the investigations = Biden. Also assumed or presumed Burisma = Biden or was code for that. uke: uke: BTW... the two people sitting next to sondland didn't hear a thing. oke: Also watch CNN try to replicate the call... CUoMO failed big time. :bop:

Let alone what we just found out about Burisma and its now legal troubles.... oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Another aspect I just read about the "fairness" of all of this.

Schiff just called a break after all of the Dem's questioning so Congressmen/women can go vote.... Nothing is up for vote today.... uke: uke:

I am sure it is so he can give his press conference and spit more half truths. Just like he has the past few days. Then in the second half of questioning... it all gets debunked. Just like it has everyday. :bop:

I will wait and see about today... but so far with all of it... it has been debunked. :thumb:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Definition of Assumption &#8230; Make an *** of you and me..


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hill testified...

1. She wasn't on the July 25th Call.
2. She wasn't even apart of the NSC other than being on the payroll
3. She handed over her duties to Morrison
4. She helped with a "package" of stuff to handle with the call but doesn't know how much of that "package" was used during the call. (So helped to prep for the call but didn't know if the stuff she worked on was used.)
5. Only read the transcript once it was released.

So hill only can assume or presume stuff. No direct knowledge.

Now even more from hill....

She testified...

1. That they were hesitant to schedule meetings with the new Ukraine president because he might not get his whole cabinet
2. Worried that he wouldn't be able to implement anti-corruption in the Ukraine
3. That No new investigations were opened into the Biden's.... NO NEW... so what the DOJ was going like I have stated all along. :bop: 
4. Trump and Ukrain did have a meeting... and aid was released.

So again... no new facts just all assumptions and presumptions.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Hill testified...

she "heard" that Sondland met with Rudy.... when yesterday Sondland said he has never held a meeting with Rudy. Rudy released a statement they have never had a meeting. Have only shook hands years ago.
- Is she lying?

She also in her opening statement said that people didn't believe that Russia interfered in out elections.... when infact that the intel committee published a non partisan report stating that Russia did. So again she "heard".... so is that a couple of things that she heard was false?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Holmes testified...

1. Some of the call was word for word other parts of it he didn't hear.
2. Said he told the Emb Taylor&#8230;. Taylor doesn't remember him telling anything... and testified to that.

He also expressed opinion, assumption, and presumptions about everything.

He did make a good case about aid and how Ukraine needs it. Which is good and they got the aid.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So where are all these great Republican witnesses that have been subpoenaed and refuse to testify???? Why aren't they in front of the committee and clearing all this up? So we ALL can hear that the LYING Mighty Trump did nothing wrong.

Could it be that the Clown Prince has A LOT to hide???

Come on Republicans. Lets get to the truth of all this one way or another.

This guy deserves to be impeached and removed from office.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This guy deserves to be impeached and removed from office.


 You should call Schiff if you have evidence he did something wrong. oke:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

It doesn't seem he is hiding anything. At least according to the schiff show witnesses.
I heard it from a friend who....... heard it from a friend whoo....... heard it on the schiff show he was messin around..... uke:

Oh and we should vote Trump out and replace him with one of those dumb arses that were on the stage last night. :laugh:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

How about Schiff not allowing any of the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call in.

I would agree 100% with you if this whole process was fair. BUT IT ISN'T!! That is why the subpoena people are not coming in.... well not all of them. Some have showed up and were supposed to be "damaging"... yet they were not. oke:

So after hearing all of this testimony Ken you still think he should be impeached over this phone call???

Lets again look at the hard evidence.... again... HARD EVIDENCE.
1. No quid pro quo (All witnesses have said that)
2. No Bribery (all witnesses said this)
3. No Extortion (all witnesses said this)
4. All people on the call (FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE) stated nothing wrong.

What they did say is that they... Believed, Assumed, presumed, or heard 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand, etc. A couple of witnesses even during questioning mentioned that they could have been mistaken and took things the wrong way. :bop:

Then the "BOMBSHELL" by Sondland about a meeting and quid pro quo.... was all about a PR meeting.... nothing with policy. Yet the Ukrainians never knew that it was a extortion, bribery, or quid pro quo!!!! Let alone the fact that now people tied to Burisma is getting into trouble. So was Trump correct about corruption with in that company and how Ukraine was soft on corruption by the past government. oke:

So again if you say he needs to be impeached because of the possibly not scheduling a meeting (which all got arranged without any quid pro quo). You are blinded by hate and are not looking at this with open mind.

I honestly thought that this was the one time they were going to get Trump. It looked bad when this story first broke.... until I read the transcript, heard the witness's, etc. You could see everything had to do with past stuff... not anything current. It was the interference in the 2016 Election (which MSNBC, CNN, ETC all reported on), it was about missing Emails and the DNC (which the DOJ is still investigating and a report to come out soon), it was about Burisma trying to gain political influence with the USA (which guess what.... they found stuff there too), with crowdstrike, etc. All of that was in the transcript!!! All past stuff that is now coming to light. :thumb:

Then on top of it all is how this thing was run. Schiff dictated everything. It wasn't open and straight forward. Like I have stated all along... this is what should Pi$$ every single citizen off. How that process happened. How Schiff wouldn't let people have access to things, How he wouldn't allow fair representation for the President, how he didn't let Republican's on the committee get depositions, transcripts, etc until last minute or on a short time period, how he gave Republicans on the committee short notice to call or put together a witness list, etc.

That should upset everyone. Because like you always say Ken.... What comes around goes around. Which I hope this never does come back around where our leaders act like this. But it is setting new precedent for any future hearings. Look at all the judge nominations.... everything is becoming a 3 ring circus. It is sad....very sad. :bop:

Here is the thing.... if the house has a vote it wont change one bit. I beat it will be exactly the same as the last one went. 2 or so Dem's vote against with all the Republicans. It will possibly go to the senate and then you will see an honest trial. The white house even has stated they welcome a Senate Trial (as of now). You will see all of your subpoena witnesses testify then and even more. Because "HOPEFULLY" it will be run fair with everyone on both sides of the isle have access and shared powers. Like it was meant to be when the founding fathers drew up our government blue print. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Some more Tid bits I am reading this morning... .I don't know how much of it is confirmed yet... but we will see.

So keep an eye out for...

1. FBI officials forged documents on FISA so they could spy on Cater Page
2. US Embassy is holding up Visa's for some Ukrainian people who would testify that no quid pro quo and testify about Corruption in the 2016 Election and what not.
3. Rudy says Hill lied about a meeting he had with Firtash.

I am wondering if all of this will come out in the DOJ Report and testimony???

Is that why Schiff or some Dem's wanted this Impeachment to happen to give a black eye or to muddy the waters of what could come out??? yes I know tin foil hat time for me. But it will be interesting if the stuff I mentioned is talked about and what comes to light about it.

But lets have all the facts before we rush to judgement.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You should call all those Trump people and tell them to testify and tell us all that went on. Sure looks like the Clown Prince is trying to hide what went on.

Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:

And Schiff should allow Republicans to call in anyone who has pertinent information.

Impeachment should be bipartisan and non political. Which should also be that way when the Senate takes over. BUT it won't will it Chuck? Because Republicans won't let it will they???? :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken....

That is what I have been saying all along. That if this thing that just ended wasn't POLITICAL BS then those people should have come on in. But they knew it was pure BS, rigged against the president, etc. Yet it fell flat on its face. The only card that people can say is.... well the people subpoenaed didn't come in... so they must be hiding something. Well maybe they knew they wouldn't get a fair shake so they held tight. Remember WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL couldn't be present. So if those people wanted representation by their employer (the white house)...they couldn't have it. oke: uke:

But it wasn't fair at all. When the Whitehouse couldn't have counsel present... when the Republicans couldn't call the witnesses they wanted with info. When republicans couldn't have access to depositions, transcripts, testimony, etc to use in questioning.... when Republicans couldn't look at things under the umbrella of "leaks"... yet things got leaked.... who leaked the stuff.... was the leaks positive or negative towards the president... Negative... so you know republicans didn't leak it. All of it was pure BS.

I like how you stated that the Senate wont be fair. We don't know if that will be true or not. If they pull the same BS that Schiff did... I will call it out. But we don't know how it will go down. I hope they see how the country is upset on how this whole thing played out that if it does go to the Senate.... it will be an even playing field. So you will see the people screaming for Biden's to testify among others.

But if the Senate calls for a Trial...

Will these people testify:

Hunter Biden
Schiff (he or his staff had contact with WB)
The whistleblower (in closed doors hidden is fine)
Joe Biden (with respect to his role in denying aid to the Ukraine)
Anyone from Burisma (If they are not locked up already with the Ukrainian investigation)
All the people under House Subpoena's
etc.

You see if this House thing was meant to be fact finding.... all of these people would have been called in as witnesses. Because lots of what Trump wanted as it has been testified too... is looking into stuff that happened in the past... not present or future.

The interesting part right now is the things I talked about with the Ukrainian people not getting Visa's by the Embassy who would testify... Hmmmmm. Why is this getting held up?

All I can say is when the DOJ report comes out things could get interesting all the way around. 
1. It could be exactly what Trump has been talking about
2. It could be a dud
3. It could even implicate Trump in some stuff

We just need to wait and see.

edit:

Like I have stated before. I am glad they looked into all of this. But after things got released they didn't need to go into "impeachment" mode. Then when it was outlined how Schiff was going to run this... it showed it was pure BS.

Also like I have mentioned before.... with so many crying wolf BS with Trump going on. Plus people since day 1 calling they will work to impeach him and ran on that to get re-elected or elected. Shows you how this process isn't a fair. Like the start of this thread.... should anyone who has been very vocal be allowed to vote for articles of impeachment? I am saying anyone who was FOR or against Trump. Before any evidence has played out. Remember lots of people kept saying we need to see the Mueller report. Those people are fine. Samething when this Ukrainian stuff started... they stated lest see the facts. Not the ones screaming Impeach the MF'er&#8230; or we need to impeach him because he will win re-election... or people calling him a Crook on the public stage at debates (before any of the Ukrainian stuff came out). Like I have mentioned... jurors are thrown off the jury if any bias what so ever is shown. This should be the same. Because some (and it seems like yourself is in the mix Ken) have your mind made up already that Trump is evil or must be guilty of something. I will admit he isn't "squeaky" clean or a model president at all. But he hasn't done anything (by all investigations) that have warranted a criminal act that will get him impeached. those are the facts... :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken I wouldn't have the Trump people testify. The very people you evidently back would lie and not allow the republicans to ask the right questions. Look at even local news and it's all lies.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> You should call all those Trump people and tell them to testify and tell us all that went on. Sure looks like the Clown Prince is trying to hide what went on.
> 
> Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:
> 
> ...


One problem Ken, The supreme court chief justice will be presiding over the senate proceedings. Not the schiff show democrats


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:


Actually this is a false statement. You are not GUILTY of a DUI.

When you sign the application/contract for getting a drivers license. There is a stipulation in that document that states you lose your driving privileges if you don't take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test or Blood test. So you are giving up your privileges of driving on the state/federal roads. You are not guilty of DUI. You are guilty of breaking a condition of a contract you signed with the government. That is why you lose it on the spot... not questions asked or a trial.

I am not sure what is in the government contracts for work. But there could be a stipulation saying if you don't go when subpoenaed you lose your job or what ever could be written into it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Lets honestly look at this whole situation.

Lets say Trump gets articles drawn up on him for what just happened. The "influencing" or what ever they are calling it now.

So now the Democratic Nom's right now...

1. Biden
- Did the exact same thing with HARD evidence that there was a quid pro quo aid tied to firing of a prosecutor. So would he then be impeached? He did this while he was an elected official.

2. Warren
- She falsified federal documents to get a loan because of her "native American" heritage. Again it might have been unknown to her. But it has come to light that it was wrong. Would she get articles of impeachment brought up on her? This happened before she was in any public office and that would be a great argument for her.

Those are two front runners that have issues in the past.

Now I don't think if Warren is elected that she should be brought up on "impeachment" because of what I stated. But I will bet you will hear people who will. Just because of all of this Trump BS that keeps happening by the extreme left. Plus many of the lefts own elected officials.... ie: Impeach the MF'er&#8230; We need to impeach him so he doesn't win... he is a crook, etc.

Now Biden... if he wins.... and Trump has articles of impeachment brought up on him via the house for what we just witnessed these past few weeks with the Ukraine BS..... He will go down in flames for sure. From what the evidence has produced about fire the prosecutor or you wont get aid. I could care less that his Son was on Burisma. He directly told a government to fire someone or they wouldn't get aid. Then it happened and the USA released the aid....That is a direct quid pro quo. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> One problem Ken, The supreme court chief justice will be presiding over the senate proceedings. Not the schiff show democrats


I totally forgot about this. So yep... the Senate Trial would be 100% open and honest.... Because a justice will be running the show.

Now if people start to say... well it wont be fair because it is a Justice that was appointed by a Republican.... well if that is peoples thinking... Then our whole justice system is wrong. Because all you would have to be or say is that the judge over looking your case is biased because they are of opposite political affiliation. I guess when I didn't get a speeding ticket lowered or dropped was because the judge was biased against my political beliefs.... oke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Federal judge rules McGahn must testify. Will this force the rest of the them that are ignoring subpoenas to testify? Hopefully. Will most likely be appealed to the Supremes. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. oke: oke:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Except the clintons, bidens, obongos and all the rest of the deep state


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I listen to the actual proceedings then listen to the local tv news at 6:00pm and 10:00pm. What they report is so out of context, part truth, and full deception that I feel the media along with the demorates are a much larger threat to the America we know than China or Russia.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The America we now have and will be heading toward if Republicans remain in control is and will be more dangerous by far. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

We can only hope Democrats can make Trump a one term loser and gain control of the Senate. Would love to see that. We need a new justice of the Supreme court when Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires. To many far right on there already. Republicans had their monopoly for 2 years and have made a mess of this country.

I know most on here are far right. Need some new blood. :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Are you talking socially dangerous? Economically? Politically?

I hope these people will testify. But it needs to be done fairly. Hence why Trump has publicly stated "bring on a Senate Trial"

Other things that are needed:
1. releasing of more transcripts, depositions that happened behind the closed doors.

- Many Republicans said there are 4 or more Depositions that explain lots of the stuff and puts into context everything that the people last few weeks testified too.

2. Schiff needs to testify with what context did he or his staff have contact with the WB.

- Doesn't need to out the WB but needs to say what he was told, how he directed or helped the WB, etc.

3. We need Rudy on stand to testify what was his actual dealings or what he was doing.

- Was he acting with the DOJ, was he rogue, was he working for the President, was he looking to build a counter case for his client (Mueller Probe stuff), etc.

Plus those others that were subpoena need to testify. BUT again if it is fair and just process. What Schiff was doing wasn't fair. Sorry Ken... it wasn't at all fair how he conducted this whole investigation process. If you cant see that then you are truly blinded by your dislike of the President.

But I also just see lots of the stuff you are seeing now is Smoke and Mirrors all before the DOJ/Horowitz report. Perfect deflection tactic... (Just like the Republicans did before the Mueller Report). But this time the media is more of the "Hypeman" that the elected officials. Such as the "report" Nunes was trying to dig up dirt..... Didn't Schiff do the exact same thing but was "Scammed" or "pranked".... Not saying it is a correct thing to do. But look at the media attention compared to when Schiff did it. oke:

Also I hope Nunes does sue and bring attention to all of this done by media outlets. I am a huge supported of the 1st amendment. But there needs to be some accountability with the media. The Covington Kid's case will be a major win for such reporting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The America we now have and will be heading toward if Republicans remain in control is and will be more dangerous by far. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Actually Ken I will feel a lot safer. The current democrats would like to take my guns and leave me helpless. I often wonder if tyranny is what they have in mind. I feel safer because our enemies are not emboldened like they were when Obama went on his apology tour. I feel safer because Trumps policies will keep America fiscally solvent and not bankrupt the company that carries my long term care insurance, or the one that has my wife's retirement investment. I feel safer because the democrats keep pandering to the radicals and I don't want it to be legal in the future for some guy 40 years old to entice my six year great grandson into sexual favors for a candy bar legally.



> We need Rudy on stand to testify what was his actual dealings or what he was doing.


 As long as it's before the senate where some integrity still exists. Perhaps the democrats would not be so bent out of shape if Trump had called Rudy a Czar. After all how many Czars did Obama have. Then like Obama's special ops team he could have made them official. I always thought Obama picked the name Czar because he admired the Russians of that era.

This is a good article. https://theweek.com/articles/879231/wel ... e-election

I wouldn't say I oppose the democrats because I hate them, but rather because they scare the heck out of me. I do consider abortion evil. I do consider punishing the rich because they are successful evil. I do consider their constant undermining Christianity evil. Other things also. I was aware they considered us the deplorables before they actually came out and said it. Democrats call themselves tolerant, but their mouth says one thing and their actions another.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.....agree with you on the current mess we are in. Lets get everybody involved in this thing to testify. WH needs to be cleaned out if it is all true. No more politics involved which is this. Just siding with Trump because he is in your party has to stop. Schiff needs to get to the bottom of this and do what is best for the country not just the Dem party.

Everything I have seen says Trump is guilty. And as more and more evidence comes out......Trump is guilty. Question will be.....is it impeachable.

Plainsman......electing the right Democrat won't take away my guns. But more and more shootings will make it tougher. Especially the ones in schools.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Guilty of what exactly?

1. Investigation Corruption?
2. Singling out only Biden?
3. Extortion? Bribery?

What exactly are you saying he is guilty of? What impeachable offense?

Because the facts are this.
1. He didn't ask for a tic for tac... or quid pro quo.
2. He did ask for investigations of corruption of the past Ukrainian Government...2016.
3. He did ask to look into issues involving the usa&#8230;.ie: 2016 election stuff, emails, crowdstrike, etc. (this happens to include biden) The key to all of this is 2016!!!! Just because biden is a running doesn't absolve him of past dealings when he was VP.

Now everyone bring up aid being withheld..... many Rep. on the committee stated that in the depositions that happened behind closed doors gives light on exactly why aid was being held. Yet Schiff didn't allow those depositions to be used during the public hearings. They state there are 4+ depositions that outline this. Plus they stated a couple of the witnesses they wanted would have shed light on this as well. Yet Schiff denied all of this to be used. Hence the reasoning why this process that Schiff did wasn't fair or just. Remember the Clinton hearings.... the lead in the investigation (Starr) had to testify after he gave his report. He testified to the house, was cross examined by White house counsel, etc. Will Schiff do this??? I think to make it more fair this needs to happen.

BTW... a tid bit coming out....A second Schiff staffer is tied to Burisma or a Burisma funded "think tank". :bop: Again don't know if this is TRUE or not yet. Just some stuff we need to keep an eye on.

But you see what is the key talking point in all of this.... BURISMA... which is proving it has dealings with corruption in the Ukraine. Indictments have already happed to some of the people in that company. It has proven that they were involved in corruption in Ukraine....Biden called for the firing of a Ukrainian official who was looking into Burisma and tied that directly to AID.

*So again... if Trump is guilty of tying aid to something of value.... So would be Biden and the administration he worked for. *

Not saying Obama had anything to do with it... but it happened under his watch. So you would have to have an investigation into all of this.

But if Trump gets articles of impeachment brought up because of this. Biden would then need to have charges or be prosecuted for the same type of crime.... which again they cant tie a crime to any of this as of yet.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I agree with a lot of what you stated. I am no means "far right".... I am right of center for sure... but not far right.

I have a big issue with the Dem's running right now. Like you mentioned they want to take away from anyone earing about $30K a year to fund many of their programs (Bernie just came out and said this at a rally). They want to take away from anyone who is successful. Then why would anyone work hard to earn money? When you cant keep it oke:

Then how will they pay for all of the stuff they are running on???

I was kind of with Ken when he said Klobchar would have been a good canidate, she seemed more center on the spectrum. (yet I disagreed with lots of the ways she voted in her past)...Yet she is now pandering to the extreme left. If they would run someone remotely close to center they would win. But everyone is so far away from center. That is the problem. Plus like I have mentioned before.... I don't think a single one ever stated "lets see the facts before I make a decision about "impeachment"". All of them have been pushing for it before any facts have been presented. That is a huge issue for me. Remember we are a country where you are innocent until proven guilty :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... tleblower/

Again take it with a grain of salt because of who is publishing this article. But it is something to keep an eye on. Will some of this come out in the DOJ report???


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Clown Prince this morning Tweeted ....."I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country."

He admits he did it. But then why did he ask them to look into Biden's son? That makes it illegal.

That is the question here. If illegal. Then it is impeachable. And up to Congress to decide that. Not him. We won't know until the Supremes decide if WH officials have to testify under the law that Congress has oversight. They do.

Contrary to what he thinks.....Trump is a president not a king. uke: uke:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

How is this...&#8230;."I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country."
an admission to
this claim...&#8230;"He held back money because they wouldn't investigate Biden"?

There is no denial that he was going to hold back money from the Ukraine the only thing in question is why... This so called "admission" still doesn't say anything about Biden.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> He held back money because they wouldn't investigate Biden"?


Again.... that was never the instance. It was to investigate corruption or have the new president show he was going to root out corruption in the Ukraine.

I see now some Dem's want to use Censure against Trump. For those of you that don't know what that is. It is basically a public decree that states what he did was WRONG but not ILLEGAL. IE: more of a moral thing than legal. Other presidents have been censured or they tried to Censure....Lincoln, Jackson, Polk, Clinton.. the list is long.

This is something I can see some Republicans going along with. Which to me is more along the correct lines instead of impeachment.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> There is no denial that he was going to hold back money from the Ukraine the only thing in question is why... This so called "admission" still doesn't say anything about Biden.


During testimony (I cant remember by whom) it was brought up that Trump never brought up Biden. It was always other people. I can't remember exactly during the testimony but I think it was Rep. Jordan brought up in X number of conversations that Biden was brought up like 3 times. The rest was about other forms of corruption in the Ukraine. And those three times was other people bring his name into the mix. It was the same way in the Transcript.

But again... Just because Biden is running for office doesn't absolve him of any past wrong doing that should be investigated. That is at the heart of this issue. I am not saying he did anything wrong. Just stating the facts. Just like I have said over and over. If Pres. Trump gets impeached over this. Biden will need to face the music for his actual stating that "so and so get fired or you wont get aid". He said it in public and it is recorded. So how can one be bad or illegal and the other can't? That is the double standard that is really upsetting. Along with this whole process of denying witnesses, denying depositions to be used during questioning, denying questions or answering questions, etc. Those two things upset me the most.

This is what I have stated since day 1 &#8230; this is in the Ukraine/biden/trump thread.



> All I am saying is if Trump did something wrong go after him.... but you need to go after the same people on the Democratic side as well. Because it looks like they did the exact same thing. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now it is coming out that Nadler wants to investigate or proceed with impeachment inquiry....

When will this end or on what grounds is his inquiry?? Didn't they just go thru something or an inquiry?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Mark Sandy is the one who testified behind closed doors stating exactly why the aid was withheld.... Schiff should release that transcript... but that is one of them he was "holding back" from use during the public hearings. oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I haven't seen the transcript yet. But they say it was released today. From the testimony behind closed doors of Mark Sandy...

To paraphrase what some said it comes down to in that testimony.... The only reason Trump gave him for holding back aid was... "Other countries were not paying their fair share and should be paying more than USA".

Again I have not read it or seen the transcript on line. But this was a "tweet" from Zeldin.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> He admits he did it. But then why did he ask them to look into Biden's son? That makes it illegal.


 You should be angry Ken because you have been lied to.

I have a question. Why is quid pro quo illegal? Isn't this holding out bait the way many presidents have got what they want from other countries? He never did ask for Biden to be investigated, but why would that be wrong if he had strong indication Biden was corrupt? I posted the video of Biden bragging about withholding a billion dollars if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his son. Was that in Americas best interest, or Bidens best interest?



> Mark Sandy is the one who testified behind closed doors stating exactly why the aid was withheld.... Schiff should release that transcript... but that is one of them he was "holding back" from use during the public hearings.


 That's because Schiff isn't the kind of man that cares about justice. He hates Trump and wants to destroy him. That and he wants power back before Barr finds out half of them are corrupt.



> All I am saying is if Trump did something wrong go after him.... but you need to go after the same people on the Democratic side as well. Because it looks like they did the exact same thing.


 But for one thing, Trump is innocent and we seen the video that proves Biden is guilty. Simply more of this two justice system in the swamp.



> I see now some Dem's want to use Censure against Trump. For those of you that don't know what that is. It is basically a public decree that states what he did was WRONG but not ILLEGAL. IE: more of a moral thing than legal


 This is like admitting "we know he is innocent, but we have to damage him some before 2020".

For those that say they know Trump is guilty (I know a dozen or so personally) I hope if they are ever in court they don't get a jury like themselves. There is no way to know he is guilty even when a couple hundred crooked politicians using nefarious means can't prove it. This is not being honest with ones self.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

If he did hold back the money, first off, it's illegal right there. Money appropriated by congress cannot be held by the president. Impoundment Control Act makes it so. If the money wasn't appropriated by congress or if congress had put those conditions on the money then it would not be illegal.

Second, if he did it for an investigation into the Bidens then further illegality gets a little tougher to prove. An investigation into wrongdoing wouldn't be an illegal request, holding money appropriated by congress to force that investigation is essentially bribery, quid pro quo or whatever you want to call it but it is most definitely illegal as well.

Third, if it would be provable that the investigations purpose was just to dig dirt on a political rival, then it is complete misuse of official government action for personal gain. Unless an insider, like rudy, turns to save his rear and states this was exactly why they were doing what they were doing and the president ordered it. It's highly doubtful that is gonna happen.

Mark Sandy did damage the republican defense fire as he stated the money had already been held for over a month before anyone even requested what other countries were contributing, and even longer before the budgetary office was told why the hold was being done. He also testified that he told them he believed the hold to be illegal because of current law. Again, it will more than likely be claimed it was the reason all along, but it just wasn't told to them.

Personally, I don't really care as I think the next one is just a corrupt as any others. Politics is such now that no normal, good, intelligent people want to be involved in it because the media and political trolls will just turn your life upside down looking for a spec of dirt. Only people with either ulterior motives or god complexes want to be involved in high level politics.

I will say this, I believe Trump just doesn't have the experience following any rules at all to be in control. He is just too use to saying jump and everyone around him says how high regardless of the request, too impulsive, or he is accustomed to using an army of lawyers to get out of anything just because he can litigate it out for eternity and the opposite side quits.

I don't think that works when it comes to where he is now. There are just too many guilty people around him already in jail. He himself may or may not be corrupt but it is the dirtiest circle of people around a singular politician that I have seen since Slick Willy Clinton.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Dead on Bear. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) allows the President to impound funds when he transmits a "special message" in accordance with the ICA. Upon sending the message, amounts proposed for rescission (that is, for permanent cancellation) may be impounded for a period of 45 days of continuous congressional session.


 You got the Impoundment Control Act backwards.



> Second, if he did it for an investigation into the Bidens then further illegality gets a little tougher to prove.


 If he has strong indication that Biden was doing something illegal it's his duty to follow up. Nothing illegal about it. As they say no one is above the law, and this includes ------ well it's supposed to include democrats. However this is a moot point since all testimony says this didn't happen. We need to talk reality not what ifs.



> There are just too many guilty people around him already in jail.


 That's a mixed bag. Firsts off he needed people with experience and most of those people were part of the swamp. Second we now know that FBI attorneys falsified information to convict innocent people.

I think it was Drudge early this morning that I read the leader in Qatar said the cheapest thing to buy is an American official. Russia purchased Hillary to get 25% of our uranium. Can you imagine years ago what would happen to anyone selling nuclear material to the enemy? I wonder what Biden was getting for the millions his son was taking in? This impeachment push is simply trying to keep the hounds off the scent of the real corruption. Corruption I am guessing in both parties.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

A lot of citizen in this country wanted the Biden deal investigated. If the president was acting on that desire is it still illegal ? Even if the secondary effect is that the timing is a benefit to Trump ?

If it is illegal for Trump to withhold aid when his political position doesn't give him that power that doesn't mean that he couldn't withhold it by going to congress and having them withhold it. How do we know that wasn't what he intended ?

Trump is no saint but sometimes immorality can only be fought with immorality.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If he did hold back the money, first off, it's illegal right there. Money appropriated by congress cannot be held by the president. Impoundment Control Act makes it so. If the money wasn't appropriated by congress or if congress had put those conditions on the money then it would not be illegal.


The impoundment fund allows the President to hold aid back for only a certain amount of days. That is what he did. Not sure if he held too many days. because right now I read an article by CNN (so again take with a grain of salt). They said that the timeline is what now they are looking into...ie: did he go over the X amount of days.

The whole investigation of Biden thing is people were saying that a US official "spying" or "investigating" of another US Citizen with foreign help. That is what they are trying to get Trump on. They testified that there is proper channels to go thru....ie: DOJ... which did happen or is happening as we speak. :bop:



> This impeachment push is simply trying to keep the hounds off the scent of the real corruption. Corruption I am guessing in both parties.


We will find out shortly with the report coming out. I also think all of the new "releases" of stuff is to try and smoke screen this report coming out. Then of course all the media will spin it to fit whom ever they want to. Just like the Nunes story... etc.

Like I have stated.... this whole process stinks from day one when Schiff set out the rules and didn't let it be a fair process. If it was a fair process from day one. I would have a different opinion for sure. But why is the NYT's the one showing us all these new transcripts when Schiff first comment was he wanted to "control" leaks... yet he is the one leaking or people around him. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Breitbart article about what Sandy testified too behind closed doors.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... iving/amp/

Explains impoundment act. oke: But doesn't give exact days type thing.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

More lies from the Clown Prince......

President Donald Trump on Tuesday denied that he directed his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to go to Ukraine and seek out investigations on his behalf, contradicting his own words to the Ukrainian President in the White House released transcript of the July 25 call.

Trump also contradicted sworn testimony from members of his administration and claims from his own White House acting chief of staff.

According to the rough transcript of a phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump repeatedly pressed for Giuliani's involvement.

How long can Pinocchio's nose get???? What a liar. uke: uke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

We don't know about Rudy is this.... Was he working with the DOJ?

We also don't know what else Rudy was doing in the Ukraine? Was he looking for the stuff in 2016 election? Was he looking for stuff for 2020? Was he building a defense case for Trump if the Nadler stuff or Mueller Stuff would go before a court?

That is why I agree with you that Rudy should testify.... but again if it was a fair and just process... but we know it hasn't been that all.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Actually, I didn't get the Impoundment Control Act backwards. Since Trump did not notify congress it was immediately illegal, which is pretty much exactly what everyone in the system told him.

If he would have notified congress immediately it could have been held for 45 days, if he produced documentation and all of the reasons why the money is being withheld and congress approved it.

None of which happened, therefore he broke the law.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So if you don't think the media plays a roll in driving a narrative or to put up smoke screens do drive the narrative as they see fit.

3 articles that have come out today (take them with a grain of salt because of who wrote them)..

1. NYT's stating that the FBI didn't spy on trump... or the report will undermine what Trump has been saying.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

2. Wash Post article stating Rudy got paid by an Ukranian official...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

3. Daily Beast article.... stating Sondland accused of sexual misconduct.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gordon-so ... hree-women

Lets not forget the Nunes fiasco that is going on now as well.

I am not saying any of these articles are false or not accurate. But history has shown us to not totally believe these outlets as being 100% honest at first take of things. Like I say lets see how this all pays out.

BTW... 
Article 1 talks about how the FBI didn't "plant" spies or stuff like that. Has nothing to do with the forging of documents to get the FISA stuff.

Article 2 talks about how Rudy's law firm was in the works of getting hired by a Ukrainian Official to help them get money back that they thought was owed to the Ukraine... it had him possibly investigating Burisma and Crowdstrike, Biden... etc. This is the one to keep a look on. It could answer lots of stuff or implicate Trump and others.

Article 3... Who knows as of yet. But lots of sexual allegations get thrown out all the time now a days.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Are more people trying to get ahead of the whole FISA report and what not coming out.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Lisa Page speaking up right now.... Is she trying to get ahead of what will be coming out about her or will she be spilling some beans so to speak on what went on. Only time will tell.

Right now she is playing "victim".... but we will see. I do agree with her that the president shouldn't be doing the BS he does... ie: Name calling and what not.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a good letter by the Presidents counsel that outlines how unfair this whole process is and the new Nadler hearings...

gave the president about a week to answer and do things when they know NATO meetings are scheduled during these times. It is all outlined in the letter.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e ... 482d550000


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a letter from Rep Collins showing you how fast Nadler is trying to jam this thru. It is showing you again how this isn't being a fair process.

This should bother anyone how this is getting conducted. Because it will set precedence for anything moving forward. I hope we never have to go thru any of this in the future. But it isn't they way it should be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman......electing the right Democrat won't take away my guns. But more and more shootings will make it tougher. Especially the ones in schools.


 You should talk them into running for office. Right now there is no democrat running that fits your description.



> The Honorable Jarrold Nadler


 :shake: Wow the letter starts off with a lie.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Don't know if it is true or not... (read this on Chuck Woolery website)&#8230;. So again take with a grain of salt. (if you don't know he has turned very conservative and very supportive of Trump). BUT the house Dem caucus is looking to expand the articles of impeachment because of the polling on the whole Ukraine fiasco. If this is true.... it shows you that they are hunting for a crime instead of investigating something that could have happened. Which plays right into Trumps whole "Witch Hunt" narrative.

But again is something to keep a look at. I know right now the main thing they are looking at is obstruction.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

House Dem's released a report saying why Trump should be impeached.... the House Republicans released a report saying why he shouldn't be impeached....

Those are the stories today... So again have gotten no where.

I haven't read either report but would like to see evidence and testimony from all. Not piece meal from either side. It all needs to be laid out for the US Citizens to see.

Edit:

Remember that Schiff didn't allow any evidence by the Republicans during this whole "investigation". He didn't allow all of the Republican witness's that they wanted on the list. He didn't release all of the testimony to the public or to the whole house of representatives.

Schiff will need to testify under oath to his report just like Ken Starr did. Same goes for whom ever drafted the Republican one. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The big up roar now is about Nunes and his contact/phone call with Rudy and others. Schiff got the private phone records of a journalist, Rudy, and Nunes as part of the investigation. I say that isn't the worse since he was investigating even though he shouldn't have made them PUBLIC.... BUT.... we need Schiff's phone records and he needs to be brought under oath about his contact with the whistle blower. What did he know, when did he know, did he help in anyway, shape, or form in constructing or guiding a complaint... etc. Just things need to be answered. YET... they are not and wont be until it goes to the Senate.

But still so far.... I don't see any impeachable offense. Like mentioned over and over and over...

1. No quid pro quo
2. The Ukraine President even stated no pressure
3. Aid was released
4. No evidence pointing to anything... all hearsay, opinion, etc.

I still think we need to wait and see what comes from the DOJ reports...ie: Horowitz and the others. Because this all could show us why or what Rudy was doing. He could have been working with the DOJ just like mentioned in the transcript of the call where Trump states... talk to Rudy and Barr. More things might come to light.

Here are some red flags about the report from the Dem's..

#1... it is over 300 pages long and they released it and wanted a vote in two hours time. So to get the report to everyone, have them read it, interpret it, discuss it, etc... all in a two hour time period.... Doesn't pass the smell test.

#2... It brings up Vinderman and "demand"... yet he never had firsthand contact with Trump. They talk about "demand" and Vindermans saying that he interpreted it this way.... then he also contradicts himself in a statement by saying... "you can interpret it in different ways"... plus during Republican questioning... he walked back many of his statements. Plus Vinderman's superior Morrison totally discredits everything and stated no such Demand.

#3... Sondland gets brought up a lot in the report. Sondland says in his testimony when asked about evidence... he said it was just his own presumption. He even admitted no evidence.

#4... So again... NO EVIDENCE by any of them who testified.

#5... Volker talked with the president directly and stated... No pressure, demand, etc. He has first hand knowledge.

#6... Morrison confirmed Volker's testimony.

#7... During the call on july 25 and the aid released on Sept 11... there was 5 meetings with Ukraine officials... not once was anything brought up about aid being withheld or quid pro quo..... 5 TIMES... nothing brought up.

#8... the report by the Dem's doesn't mention "BRIBERY".... remember that was a bombshell. oke:

So again... no evidence, all hearsay or opinion, aid was released, no quid pro quo.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... or-shokin/

This is an article from Breitbart... so take with a grain of salt. But it debunks all the CNN stories about a "meeting in Vienna" with Ukraine officials to get dirt on Biden. This is what Parnas says happened and will talk about. Yet records show Nunes wasn't in Vienna or had contact during the time Parnas is stating.

But it will be interesting what else comes out about Nunes and what not.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

This is a list and a little back ground on the people testifying today in front of Nadler.

I hate to say it all but 1 of them have been vocal during all of this. So should they be considered "non biased"... don't know.

This is even the one guy the Republicans are calling to testify, Turely.
- He claimed that Trump during the Mueller fiasco could not be charged with Obstruction in an opinion piece.
- He said that Clinton (Bill) could be impeached IF the house could prove things.
- He stated that the impeachment is doomed to fail because of incomplete and conflicted record.

So he isn't squeaky clean or not slanting a certain way. Two of the overs wrote pieces saying to Impeach Trump.... one who was a possible Supreme Court Justice nominee under Obama has remained silent. So like I said.. 1 out of the 4 seems to be not biased as of now.

So todays testimony is another dog and pony show.

Also remember... these are 4 people today... 3 called by the Dem's... 1 allowed to be called by the Rep's.... So is this fair? Shouldn't it be 2/2 or 3/3 or 100/100 to be fair? Just things to think about.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Every Dem on the Jud Committee just voted not to have Schiff testify....

WHY? They had Ken Starr who wrote the report on Clinton Testify. Why wouldn't they have Schiff testify since he wrote the report? They had Mueller Testify... even after he wrote his report. He stated his report spoke for itself... yet the Dem's pushed to have Mueller testify.... Why not Schiff????

Is this biased... oke: oke: oke:

Like I stated..... this whole Ukraine thing isn't passing the smell test and isn't giving due process. That is my biggest issue!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

On FOX last night they payed a video of Nadler talking when the Clinton impeachment was going on. He said that any impeachment must be bipartisan no exceptions. I forget the rest, but he talked about the president someone representing him being in all meetings and keeping everything transparent or something like that. Anyway he was saying everything we are saying now. So what can one derive from this? That the whole thing is partisan and fair which the liberals always talk about actually means nothing to them. They are without integrity.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Let me add another tidbit to this whole issue....

The Dem's report was out less than 24 hours ago. The Judicial Committee hasn't gotten any of the underlying evidence and that is being block by Nadler. WHY????

This adds to the previous post of mine where they tabled having Schiff testify..... the writer of the Report. Why is this? Does this see like fact finding, or due process???? :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

First witness Noah Feldman...

Just 46 days into the Trump presidency tweeted that he should be impeached....

So this is a good non biased witness.... oke:

Plainsman...

I have seen that too by Nadler and totally agree with him back then and now. This whole thing needs to be fair and not one sided.

Just like I mentioned in the post about the witnesses today.... The one for the Republicans.. Turley... he seems biased for the Republicans... so not someone you should have as a witness... IMHO.

I will state this again.... If Trump is guilty of something and the evidence is overwhelming and not hearsay... throw the book at him. No president should get away with things. But it must also be a fair process not slanted, biased, etc. Because our whole system is based on "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".... not "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT". :bop: Right now I see no evidence pointing to him being guilty. Not one hard fact. It is all opinion, hearsay, etc.

The only thing is possible obstruction in which the DOJ already didn't find enough or what have you to prosecute... if it was because of executive privilege or what ever. They couldn't do it or felt they couldn't do it. Otherwise.... there is nothing. Hence why the judiciary committee first opening today was about "OBSTRUCTION"... so they are rehashing the Mueller probe right now... or saying this Ukraine issue is the Mueller all over again. :bop:

EDIT: I forgot totally about Mueller saying that his investigation was never hindered or "OBSTRUCTED". Trump also handed him many documents and stuff. This one is a little different but yet people testified... well some. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Lets put this into perspective on how much of a big deal it is that the Dem's on the committee tabled not having Schiff testify before the committee. I wont even touch on the subject of him having possible contact with the Whistle Blower....

But Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment..

#1... Gave a 445 page report congress and the committee
#2... Gave 36 boxes of evidence to the committee
#3... Then took questions from everyone on the committee PLUS white house lawyers or legal staff.

So let me ask you this... how is this fair if all Schiff has done is given the report. he hasn't as of yet handed over any evidence. The report is only 24 hours old.... yet hearings in the Judicial committee are underway. PLUS the president and his counsel are not present. Does this seem fair or due process??? Does this not seem to be a political weapon???

Let all of this sink in. The half of the committee doesn't want the writer of the report to testify (Dem's only), the report is only 24 hours old and now the committee is having hearings, no white house counsel is present or can question any of the witnesses, no evidence from the report has been given to the committee..... yet this is a fair and due process.

So it amounts to that the national enquirer could write a paper and it be used as evidence of impeachment.... but they don't have to give the evidence or have the author testify! :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Some quotes from the people testifying today..



> Michael Gerhardt: "Impeachment is serious business, perhaps the most serious other than going to war that Congress ever contemplates. Any impeachment inquiry must be conducted thoroughly and preferably with bipartisan support."


- Must be bipartisan and thoroughly.... not rushed.



> Noah Feldman: "The single most dangerous pitfall [Democrats] face is allowing too much legal talk to obfuscate the fundamental wrongness of Trump's conduct . . . "


- So don't let legal or law get in the way



> Prof. Turley: "Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither."


- Again... must not be rushed and complete with facts and evidence.



> Prof. Turley: "Rather than founding these allegations on clear & recognized definitions, the House has advanced a capacious & novel view of bribery to fit the limited facts."


- Again... facts and evidence... not Opinion and Hearsay. Should Schiff hand over evidence???



> Prof. Turley: "Even if the 'official act' were clear, any bribery case would collapse on the current lack of evidence of a corrupt intent."


- Third time.... evidence and facts!!!



> "I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger." - Jonathan Turley


- Is this being used as a weapon?? and again.... EVIDENCE.



> Prof. Turley: "Impeachments have to be based on proof not presumptions."


- So why doesn't Schiff hand over evidence, testify, etc. So with in 24 hours of the report we hear from these witnesses.... shouldn't they testify after we get evidence??? Not just a "report".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Turley to Congress: "If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime & misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."





> Prof. Turley: "You can't say the president is above the law if you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established."





> Prof. Turley: "There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo... it's not in this record"


Turely also commented on the fact that Trump didn't follow thru on the subpoena's..... which again I am one saying that is kind of obstruction. I guess he called for a judicial review before following thru with them. Which I have stated all along about the fairness of the whole process. He wanted a review of the process before he did anything or didn't do anything. So just his "lack" of not doing them isn't obstruction... if the judicial review happened then he didn't do it then that is obstruction. :thumb:

A tweet from Alan Dershowitz:


> Alan Dershowitz‏Verified account @AlanDersh · 1h1 hour ago
> Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.


Now a little more about some of the people testifying today...

Prof. Karlan&#8230;. Said she had to cross the street so she wasn't on the same side as a Trump hotel... or would pass Trump hotel. Has donated to Warren.

Michael Gerhardt worked for Senator Feinstein in an effort to smear Justice Kavanaugh.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

So Prof. Karlan said she read the transcripts of all of the testimony by all of the witnesses who testified publicly....

She goes off on how Trump... DEMANDED... yet that isn't what any of them stated. It was the exact opposite. They all "assumed", "Presumed", thought, etc. None of them hand first hand experiences with Trump saying or "DEMANDING" anything. They never spoke with the President. Only one of them spoke directly with the president and he stated that there was nothing. Only one saying the word "demanded" was Vinderman&#8230; and his superiors stated otherwise. He even stated that it could be interpreted a different way than he did. So only 1 person said... DEMAND... then it was debunked. oke:

Interesting isn't it. oke:

Edit:

All of the professors who say Trump should be impeached are talking about "bribery".... yet in Schiff's report he doesn't mention it. Only time it was mentioned was in referencing Biden. So if the impeachable offense is "Bribery"... why isn't that the main focus of the Report? Why don't the Dem's don't want Schiff to testify?

Edit #2:... I don't know how much of this is true. But I read that during the Dem's chance to question the witnesses today that they only asked Turley 1 question and then even interrupted his answer. I am not sure what the equal time as of now is for the Republicans questioning the other three. But if you want to get to the bottom of something or want it to be fair... wouldn't you ask questions of about equal time to all of them. Since they are there to give opinion on constitutionality of this.... so you should ask them all the same question and let them all respond. I would even say this is needed to be done by the Republicans. But I am sure it isn't. oke: :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Rep. Mike Johnson made a great point in his statements today....

About the same as I did about previous bias and what not. He stated that 16 of the members of the judiciary committee already voted to impeach trump even before the mueller report was out, even before this whole Ukraine issue. That committee alone is the one who investigates impeachment or is in charge of it in the house. How isn't this biased. He also refuted a statement by Rep. Jordan saying the facts are not disputed. Johnson said... everything is disputed. The facts, the process in which everything is happening, etc. This is all partisan. So how can this committee be a fair "jury".

It is exactly what I have been talking about with Due Process and a Fair process. Remember Nadler said he would be the perfect head of the committee because he will impeach the president. How is this even remotely fair. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Just like I mentioned in the post about the witnesses today.... The one for the Republicans.. Turley... he seems biased for the Republicans... so not someone you should have as a witness... IMHO.


He said he had no dog in the fight. A little background: he is a Trump critic and votes democrat.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

If they are calling what Trump did bribery for personal gain then they ALL are guilty of it. Every one of them use their position as leverage for personal gain. That's how many of them become rich. Do you think there wasn't some leverage for personal gain applied by Pelosi to obtain the speaker position?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman....

I read about Turley later on last night and exactly what you stated. He seemed like the only one not running on emotion but took a larger look at everything.

Dakota... that is exactly what Turley stated. In a line of questioning a Republican asked about the terms of "bribery" that the other three laid out. Would (and he listed lots of presidents actions) constitute as "bribery".... and he said... yes. Obama, Kennedy, etc. Lots of past presidents. Then that Republican stated... maybe we should start impeaching all these past presidents too.

Because the other 3 did such a broad stroke with "bribery". Turley said you have to look at that as a starting point them move onto cases heard by the courts and higher courts to narrow it down. Then he went into how what happens now will change history as they move forward and will not be good.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP



> WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday she is asking the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.
> 
> Pelosi said in a statement at the Capitol that the facts of Trump's alleged wrongdoing involving Ukraine "are uncontested."
> 
> ...


It will be interesting how this all plays out. Especially see how the "tabling" of Schiff to testify will go. Remember Ken Starr had to testify, produce evidence, etc. So we will see what happens or if they hold Schiff to the same standards as previous "investigators".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukr ... id=DELLDHP

THE PLOT THICKENS!!!!! Was Trump right all along... :beer:



> Ukraine lawmaker met Giuliani to discuss misuse of US taxpayer money in Ukraine
> 
> KIEV, Dec 5 (Reuters) - An independent Ukrainian lawmaker said on Thursday he had met U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer in Kiev to discuss the alleged misuse of U.S. taxpayer money by Ukrainian state bodies.
> 
> ...


So was Rudy, Trump and everyone looking at corruption as a Whole not just the "bidens" like everyone on the left want you to believe. Also if Trump does get articles of impeachment brought up on him.... If Biden wins... you will see them get brought up on him DAY 1. Because he did the exact same thing they are accusing Trump of.... BRIBERY!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So I just read on twitter.... So take with a grain of salt if it is true or not.

BUT.... Schiff said he will have a Staffer testify and deliver his report to the judiciary committee. Why would that be?? Does he not want to be under oath??? Does this look shady??? What would any Dem, liberal, MSNBC, CNN, etc all say if a Republican who wrote a report on impeachment and did an investigation into impeachment sending a STAFFER to deliver it to the judicial committee and not have themselves under oath. What would they be saying...

This is another example of how this isn't fair, just, stands up against previous precedent, and a totally mockery of our system.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... mpeachment



> The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of Donald Trump. After all, Alexander Hamilton that impeachment would often occur in an environment of "agitated passions." Yet I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides.
> 
> In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense "rancor and rage" and "stifling intolerance" that blinds people to opposing views. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent piece written by Turley. It shows that more evidence is needed to pursue impeachment of Trump. Not to rush it. Which I have shown over and over. There is no evidence... AS OF YET. So he shouldn't be impeached. But if they would let the courts decide on the Subpeona's and if they are fair and just. Those subpoenas are for the Mulvaney, Rudy, etc. All of those people who everyone is crying about OBSTRUCTION. Which again Turley talked about how it isn't until after the court rules. Then that lays out obstruction. He talks about in this article that to impeach for CONDUCT that isn't a crime you need loads of evidence and direct evidence.... not hersay and opinion. He actually gave them great advice on slowing down and collect more evidence. Yet we know that wont happen.

Like I have stated if the evidence points to wrong doing then get him. But so far there is no direct evidence. Maybe after the courts render a verdict on the subpoenas we will get more direct evidence. But we need to wait for that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 41899.html

So this is an article addressing Schiff and the "phone" numbers or call log. Not sure how accurate it is and not sure about the publication or how "accurate" it is. But is something to look at.

It talks about how people on Schiff staff are not even 100% sure that the calls were from the OMB or that if the calls were a "masking" number. So the whole call log isn't 100% fact yet. Now with Schiff's track record I would be skeptical but you never know. oke: Remember he has evidence of Russian Collusion... that he never gave to Mueller or has brought to light. Plus some of his "facts" in this Ukraine issue have fizzled and fallen flat. So this is a thing to look at to see if valid or not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Headline: Democrats say Trump impeachment charges must come swiftly

You know why they want this quickly? Because they must stop the Barr investigation or a pile of democrats are going down quickly. They have nothing but the lies they have told and the media is carrying their water. The media never covers the republicans kicking their behind in afternoon questioning. Most things come from witness opening statements. You never hear, "it was my assumption".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The media never covers the republicans kicking their behind in afternoon questioning. Most things come from witness opening statements. You never hear, "it was my assumption".


This is correct..... they rush out to talk about the "damning" opening statements but never get the afternoon session with the Repbulican questioning.

I just read Nadler gave Trump until 5 pm today to see if he will comply or participate in the hearings. He gave the Republicans until 5 today to get a witness list ready. So really... why moving so fast? I could see give them until next week to get things inline and what not. I still haven't heard or read if Schiff has given over to the committee his evidence that he collected during his whole investigation. This should be done first... then compile witness lists for all sides after seeing the evidence. Remember lots of people haven't seen the behind closed door stuff yet. Could be mountains of stuff that could implicate or pardon trump. We don't know. But wouldn't you think that to be fair and just you would want to know what that stuff is and compile a witness list off of that... for or against impeachment.... :bop:

I don't want to be a conspiracy person... but it all looks like they want to get in front of something for sure. Or they want to get the articles drawn up before the new year.... so it might lesson the blow back (if any) during an election cycle.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The WSJ did a piece on the phone number thing I listed above....

Is this gaining traction or still a nothing burger?? Time will tell.

But again it shows you that Schiff needs to release his "evidence" to the judiciary committee so they can look at it... ALL SIDES.... then make witness lists... ALL SIDES.... then proceed with the impeachment BS. Then #1 should be having Schiff Testify about his report. Then go from there.... because if this is all based off his report and evidence during his investigation.... don't you think you would want that front and center to make a case for or against impeachment?? Seems logical... correct???


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Remember he has evidence of Russian Collusion... that he never gave to Mueller


 So wouldn't that be obstruction of justice ???? lol


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... vaney.html

Number #3 article stating that Schiff tying Rudy to phone calls could be wrong or is being disputed....

So shouldn't more evidence be given to the committee that will be voting or drawing up articles of impeachment? Should Schiff defend or clarify his report/evidence to the committee? This could either implicate or even help with charges.... or it could blow up in his face. We wont know unless he testifies or gives up all of his evidence. Impeachment is serious thing and we need all of the evidence to be presented.

It this keeps coming up about how leaked evidence is pure BS... stuff needs to be defended or is all of it pure BS?

Why rush something?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did you hear that person ask Pelosi if she hated Trump. She lost it. I thought to myself what a joke when she called herself a devout catholic. The catholic church is against abortion which she votes for. I forget which liberal it was a few years ago that a priest denied them communion. What a joke these people are. I suppose after reading Revelations I should understand that the world is in steady decline. This Pope should put the catholic church into further decline.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Let me know if this seems fair...

25+ days ago Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee requested documents pertaining to the impeachment.... NADLER finally gave them to those congressmen less than 48 hour before the hearing for them to review thousands of documents.

Why are they speeding this along so fast?? Like I have stated over and over... Due process has been thrown out. If this was a court trial a judge would be slowing it down.

Edit...

Schiff isn't there to present his report today. Nunes is there.... where is SCHIFF??? Why doesn't he want to be under oath?? Im sure he is getting his legal team ready for when Nunes comes after him for the phone records issue. :bop: :bop:

But that just shows you some stuff.... if the case for impeachment was strong... why isn't he there to give his report? Ken Starr did it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> where is SCHIFF??


 The lying, bottom feeding, piece of dung is hiding. He can't tell his stories under oath.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One of the key testimonies today of a STAFF member for impeaching trump was a video of Sondland saying there was a quid pro quo during his testimony.... But they forgot to include the part where Sondland stated it was "HIS OPINION". Not facts, no evidence, but an OPINION!!!

Where is Schiff????

I will say it again.... if they had facts that show Trump did wrong doing. Throw the book at him. But all it is so far is opinion, presumption, assumptions.... no facts! The transcript all shows he was worried about past corruption and corruption as a whole. It just happens Biden was apart of it.

Over the weekend on OAN (so take it for what it is) there was reporting of investigaitons opening up into 2016 stuff that was shut down because of Biden, there is paperwork and testimony coming out that Biden did a quid pro quo (among others), it is showing more stuff that doesn't look good for past Dem's... ie: other elected officials. If you go on to youtube and look up OAN you will see all of this. Again OAN is a right wing channel. So take it all in stride and it all could be BS. But it is things to keep an eye on. Since other stuff that I linked to all of this earlier (see other posts). I am not saying it is accurate or true... but things to keep in mind or keep an eye on to see what comes of it. Could be nothing... could be "HUGE"... (I couldn't resist a Trump HUGE). oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

an article just out about this mornings (so far) testimony...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Here is a key snippet that shouldn't be glanced over.... Does it seem that some are afraid of what Rudy is doing right now??? Why should they car what this report will be unless it is "damning" or does "damage" to what they are doing as of today??? Remember Rudy is looking into stuff from 2016. He has stated over and over that is what he is looking into is the corruption back then. :bop:



> Another Democratic lawyer, Daniel S. Goldman, the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee that gathered the evidence being presented on Monday, said that Mr. Trump continues to try to distort next year's election with false allegations, pointing to his weekend tweet saying that Rudolph W. Giuliani, his personal lawyer, would make a report to the Justice Department about Democrats.


Does below sound fair and just process???



> Republicans also complained that the lawyers making the opening presentations had not been sworn in under oath and that committee Republicans had not received until last weekend 8,000 pages of information from the House investigation, giving them little time to digest them before Monday's hearing.





> Among other things, Republicans pressed Mr. Nadler repeatedly to schedule a hearing day that they would be allowed to organize, including calling witnesses of their choice. Mr. Nadler said he would think about it, but made no commitment.





> The hearing may be an important factor in shaping the articles of impeachment that House Democrats are drafting against Mr. Trump amid an intense debate about how expansive the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors should be.
> 
> Democrats appear poised to accuse Mr. Trump of abuse of power and bribery for pressuring Ukraine to help him incriminate Democratic rivals while withholding American security aid. They also expect to charge him with obstructing the congressional investigation by defying subpoenas, blocking current and former administration officials from testifying, and trying to intimidate those who have.


So like the last quote.... they are already plan on drawing up articles of impeachment... WITH OUT all the facts and letting people be interviewed, testify under oath, allowing others to question people under oath, etc. So how is this fair and just??? Remember the judiciary committee is the one to draft the articles and collect all of the facts. They will use the Schiff report and others to determine articles plus their own fact finding.... yet they are not allowing this to be a true process...&#8230;

Again... IS THIS FAIR?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When I think the democrats Can stoop no lower they always prove me wrong. We all knew Trump was joking in the debates when he said "hey Russia can you find Hillary's missing emails". Anyone with half a brain knew it was a joke. Today they are saying it was an impeachable offense. I'm starting to wonder if the democrats look at how Russia and China took over their nation's and want to try it here. The only other alternative is they are truly insane.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Nadler rejects all 8 of witnesses Republicans on the Judicial Committee want to call.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

I would like to see the list to see if they are "out of the scope" of this. Hunter Biden... is out of the scope in my opinion because he is just what the call is about not on the call. It is like saying if a mob boss wanted to kill someone or make a hit and it was on tape.... you don't really need the person who the boss wanted whacked to be a witness to the act of him making the call. But why not Schiff if he was on that list? Schiff made the report.... he isn't out of the "scope". He needs to answer questions... especially if he had contact or people of his staff had contact with the WB.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

More testimony on why Schiff should be there.

Collins asked a witness who ordered getting the phone records from Nunes and others.... who cross checked to make sure they are correct and timing, etc. They guy wont answer that question because it wasn't done. Yet they use it in the report as "facts"... yet Nunes has shown that it is 100% accurate and also records show about the White house number isn't 100% accurate. (see previous posts). S

So that shows you why Schiff needs to be there to back up his findings in the report himself. Because it is showing that the facts don't add up.... just like the IG report.... not showing all the facts to people in-order to get your out come.... ie: IG report said that evidence was left out to gain FISA that would have contradicted why they needed the FISA warrants.



> IG identified "numerous serious factual errors and omissions in the applications ... that undercut certain allegations in the FISA applications."


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So now they have drawn up 2 articles of impeachment that are set to get voted on.

Lets look at some of the facts, not of the case but of the process.

1. The minority never got the witnesses they wanted in any of the public hearings.

2. The minority of the JUDICIAL committee never got a "minority" day to have their witnesses testify and be crossed examined by the Majority.

3. Schiff never went under oath and delivered his report (like previous with Ken Starr).

4. The Judicial committee in full got the evidence from the Schiff findings 48 hours before yesterdays hearings. So Dem's and Republicans didn't have enough time to look it over and do through job.

Anyone Else want to add more stuff in here that doesn't seem like a fair process???

I believe they had the articles drawn up way before the past two public hearings. I believe they want to rush thru this just like what we are finding out about the IG report. People are "omitting" evidence or not allowing things so they can push a narrative. Just like the IG report stated..... The FBI wasn't biased in how they "handled" the investigation into Trump/Russia.... but it did say that evidence was withheld, omitted, documents falsified, etc. All to gain FISA. So it means that bad players in it did wrong things. Sounds familiar to me with how this process has been.

Also remember Mueller never found any connection with Russia... Which Nadler and people keep bringing up about 2016 Russian Interference.....NONE!!!! Remember Mueller stated his investigation was never hindered by the President.

Remember this will set up how future proceedings will happen. The majority is never the majority for ever. :bop: :bop:

This was a rushed process.

BTW.... The two charges...

1. Obstruction of Congress.
- Which Turley stated didn't happen just yet because Trump was waiting for the Courts to decide in people needed to listen to Subpeonas.

- Mueller stated his investigation was never hindered by the president.

- Look what is coming out with the IG report on the Mueller probe. Some people lied, held back evidence, falsified reports, etc. So was Trump in his right talking about firing people??? :bop: :bop: :bop:

2. Abuse of Power.
- Which if Trump was looking into the 2016 actions, plus over all corruption. This is a flimsy case at best.

- I will bring up IG report again about the people falsifying documents, holding back evidence, lying, etc. Were these people in the Ukraine in 2016? Were these the people the head of the FBI?? Only time will tell with Horowitz and Barr left to show us their findings and the outcome of that (arrests possible, charge brought up, etc).


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

This is a good little article stating both side...&#8230; GOOD FOR THE USA TODAY. It basically states both sides to the argument. Now you just need to see what facts help defend each side of the coin.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10/ig ... with-lies/

An article from the federalist..... but it is true.

Schiff's memo back during the Russia narrative was false. Plus this guy was the lead on the Ukraine investigation and is "pushing" it thru way too fast. Not letting the minority have its day or witnesses. Then Nadler doing the exact same thing... no minority day or letting them have their witness list. Sure seems like DUE PROCESS to me.... uke: uke: uke: oke: oke: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Maybe that is why he didn't want to be under oath. oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://time.com/5746417/ukraine-andriy ... interview/

Article in TIME magazine.... totally undercutting what Sondland testified too. Also you cant say Sondland of perjury because he directly stated.... It was in his OPINION. So it shows you how all of this is hearsay and opinion based.

Lets see if the judiciary keeps pushing forward with this new tidbit of knowledge. Remember they took testimony from people and are using it against Trump who READ IT IN ARTICLES.... so will they take this article in as evidence??? oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?467236-10 ... nt-inquiry

Great little interview with Rep Kelly Armstrong.

Talks about the courts and Trumps right to wait for the courts. Let the courts rule on the subpoenas. If they let that happen it could be giving him rope to hang himself. But they are not letting that happen.

He talks about how it is going way too fast. He also talks about the minority rights which are being ignored.

Like I have stated they are not giving due process.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Something Schiff stated in his press conference yesterday should scare us all.

he stated.... We can't wait for the courts to make a decision. So he is basically stating that our court system isn't good that law makers should make all decisions. That is why we have the three branches of government. To make sure they are all in check and balance. Trump is using his right for a fair hearing.... just like any other person has that right. AND YES I WOULD BE SAYING THE SAME THING IF THIS WAS A DEM PRESIDENT..... It is a process set up and it isn't getting followed.

Just like the minority keeps getting stonewalled on getting a "minority" day. Which is in the rules.... yet the rules are not getting followed. Like I mentioned with what came out in the IG report and future reports from Barr and Durham.... anyone in Congress needs to toe the line. Rules were broken and not followed.... so if Congress as a whole wants to get people to believe in them again... they need to follow rules and procedures that are in place.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

lets look at the fairness of this impeachment again....

The dems gave the House Judiciary Republicans less than 3 hours to come up with amendments to the articles of impeachment....

WOW..... how can anyone stick up for this type of actions against anyone. This is a railroad job if I have ever seen one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As bad is our dishonest media. As far as I am concerned my opinion is when they undermine our government they commit treason. I watch the proceedings, and the media cherry picks to support their bias. That endangers our government and our freedom in the end. This is the actions we see in North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, not a democracy.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Media Bias was of full display today.

When Lindsey Graham was giving his opening statement CNN, MSNBC, etc... all talked over him. Then when Fienstien talked it was silence.

I an not saying our media is as bad as this.... but remember Nazi germany and hitler controlled the media and propaganda.... same goes with USSR, China, etc. But it shows you when news isn't news and they suppress others... is what can happen.

I hope some of the law suits that Nunez and others are doing get some attention and action. Because even people are attacking Fox news and some of its people for being "liberal".... when maybe they are just asking more questions and trying to show some neutrality. Now of course this isn't the Carlson, Hanity, etc. But some just regular reporters.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

And from Jerry Nadler today in the Mark-Up Hearings in the house today......
"We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems ..." :withstupid:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

speckline said:


> And from Jerry Nadler today in the Mark-Up Hearings in the house today......
> "We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems ..." :withstupid:


 I was listening when he said that. In other words he thinks the American people are to stupid to make the right choices. The dems are going down in 2020. Many of us like you speckline knew how rotten the democrats are, but AOC and her triplet buddies along with the radical left running for the democrat nomination have now exposed how radical and nuts they are. The impeachment proceedings helped too. Trump is ecstatic.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another thing.... a congressman said it best today...Rep Ben Cline... "for the procedure to seem legitimate it needs to be as void as possible of politics"....

Lets look at this...

1. No minority hearing day.
2. No minority witnesses allowed to testify (Schiff's or Nadlers hearings)
3. Minority was suppressed on what they could use or say during the open Schiff hearings.
4. No White House counsel allowed.
5. No minority subpoena powers
6. The Document Dumps or speedy time lines not allowing through time to look at everything.
7. 16 of the Dem's on the Judiciary Committee had voted to impeach Trump before the Ukraine phone call.
8. Calling for Articles to be drawn up even before all hearings were completed.
9. Don't wait for the courts to decide if people need to listen to the subpoena's or use what the courts are there for.

I am sure there is even more I have stated all along. But it shows you how scary this really is. Lets talk about anything going on in the future... ie: nominations of Supreme Court Justices.... should they gavel out any minority questions? Not let the minority have any right to ask anything? How about future impeachments..... same thing? It is setting up how things will be run in the future. This is what is truly scary.

Also like mentioned.... Nadler states we cant wait for elections.... So why should we have them??

Schiff talking about... cant wait for the courts to decide.... So we should abolish them as well??

This is scary as hell when elected officials speak like this. I am throwing aside the evidence that shows Trump isn't guilty... even if it showed he is 100% guilty... this not allowing process is scary as hell. A person who is up for murder and is 100% guilty of murder gets better treatment and a fair chance.

If this doesn't even bother or scare Dem's on how this process was conducted it is a sad state for our great nation. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> but AOC and her triplet buddies along with the radical left running for the democrat nomination have now exposed how radical and nuts they are


Here is one for you.... Talib sent out a tweet after the shooting in Jersey City saying something like.... White Supremecy kills.... yet the people who carried out the shooting were apart of the Hebrew Isrealites&#8230; They were black people...

She deleted the tweet... didn't offer up an apology, correction, etc. She just deleted it. She could have just stated she meant "antisemitism" kills. Yet nope. Shows you her true colors.

On this topic of the jersey city shooting..... How come MSN or MSNBC, CNN, etc are not having this front and center as it unfolds. They have for other shootings that have happened.... oh wait... it doesn't fit the narrative of WHITE EXTREMISTS. This is sad that I had to search twitter to find stuff out about this shooting. I wanted to learn about the police officer killed, owners of the bodega, the shooters, type of weapons, police respond time, etc. Just like what news outlets should do....report on news and on facts. Yet... nothing!!!

I also understand that impeachment is happening, IG report, etc. But they should have had some stuff about this and the aftermath.... yet they don't.

Sorry off topic but shows you how the media is PURE BS.... even fox news wasn't having too much about this. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck your just islamaphobic. :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman... thanks... oke: oke:

But yeah I guess I only want facts reported to push narratives not to just know the facts.... :thumb:

I got caught up on some clips from todays debate on impeachment. I listened to Rep. Swallwell list off a bunch of stuff that he says the Schiff reported proved were true... ie: Bribery, extortion, quid pro quo... all of those talking points. Then I heard Republicans say.... why then are those not listed in the Articles of impeachment? If the proof is so damning... why not list bribery, extortion, etc. Because the facts and evidence doesn't prove it.

I also listened to Rep. Collins opening statement about how the minority got shot down for any witnesses. He then said that the Dem's keep saying all the argument that the Republicans have is because of the procedure or lack there of following the rules and allowing a minority day. He says... I got tons of evidence and facts that the reports don't report on and they have even more they would present if they get to have a minority day.

Like I mentioned before that if people are not scared by how this whole things was conducted they should be. Regaurdless if you think he is guilty or not. The Due process, the comments made by Schiff and Nadler should scare people. The we cant wait for an election to decide (ie: vote someone out of office), the we cant wait for the courts to decide.... Those should scare anyone. Let alone the fact that not letting the minority have a day in "court" so to speak or a voice and suppressing them is exactly why our country was founded and the USA because a country. They revolted against lack of representation. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

A great snippet of Rep. Jordan and Rep. Gaetz today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8FHpoo ... e=youtu.be


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://twitter.com/RepArmstrongND

ND be proud of Rep. Kelly Armstrong....

He is saying exactly what I have been saying for a long time. :thumb: :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just read that they might allow a minority day of hearings.... AFTER A VOTE TAKES PLACE.... seriously. Does that mean the minds are already made up regaurdless of the facts or any new facts that could be brought up.

So that is like saying.... Mr. Defendant who is accused of (insert crime)&#8230; let us vote you guilty then you can present your case to us. Is that how our system works???

Like I mentioned this should scare the living hell out of everyone.... :bop: :bop: :bop:

Please I welcome anyone to try and defend this type of behavior.....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Saw on twitter...

During a break a member of the press walked up to a GOP spot and took pictures of notes sitting in front of her.

1. They stated that member of the press was removed.
2. How did he get that close?
3. Need to know what publication was that person with..

It just showed him only taking a picture of a GOP spot.... nobody else's.... This is bad and again... where is the security in the judicial committee.....

Not saying anything about Dem or Rep.... this is all about media and the BS many in the media are about. YES THIS INCLUDES FOX.... anyone pushing a narrative..... is this how things get "leaked". :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How can anyone, even those who vote democrat, defend this kind of behavior? I wish we had a couple of the radical liberals we had in the past so we could observe their twisted thoughts. Psychosis is interesting.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

That is why I open for debate on the whole.... Giving the minority a day after a vote on the committee.....

How is that correct? Yet alone not even giving the minority a day before this debate or the articles were drawn up. It is like saying... I don't want to hear the otherside of the story... my mind is made up. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WRITING LAWS.

It is astonishing that some are actual lawyers. I hope the Bar Association really takes a look at this.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well the articles of impeachment passed on a party lines (of course).

After watching lots of the debate last night I still couldn't grasp on some of the Dem's talking points.

Many kept bringing up Mueller and Russia collusion. Yet that report and Mueller himself said... NO COLLUSION. Mueller also stated that his investigations was NEVER HINDERED BY THE PRESIDENT. His only comment was about obstruction because of him firing or threatening to fire people. Now with that stated about the "obstruction" of firing people... look what came out in the IG report. Was he correct in his thought process?? But again... how can they claim RUSSIA.... when it was all about UKRAINE. That is what I don't get? If they can't use the facts from the Ukraine investigation by Schiff.... they shouldn't be bringing up Collusion or Russia. Some even brought up THE WALL and other talking points. That just shows you that the Ukraine stuff is so flimsy that they need to bring up other things to try and state a case.

Then they also cried that the Republicans only were complaining about "the process" and "couldn't bring up facts to "clear"" the president. Well they have over and over brought up the straight facts of the case. They also said if they could get their day they would bring more. Yet they are denied.

Anyways.... It will be interesting to see what will happen with a floor vote. because as of last night I saw one report that about 10 dem's are deflecting and possible will vote with the Republicans in the house. Only time will tell what will come of all of this.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Don't know if 100% true or not.

But read somewhere that if Biden is subpoenaed by the Senate to testify.... he wouldn't go until the courts decided if he had to....

Isn't that exactly what the Dem's are accusing with OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS???

This this pans out to be true... LOOK OUT. oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Great statement by Rep. Herrera Beutler


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

She is a republican, so of course she will vote no. That's what any democrat will tell you. Of course every democrat will vote yes, despite any real, tangible evidence for corruption. This is strictly partisan politics. Sanity is in short supply. Case in point: a winey, pretentious, obnoxious Swedish teenager is the Time person of the year. Really? Surprised it wasn't Nadler. If things haven't got weird enough just wait till Trump wins re-election. We are about to experience a time and events never before imagined. Opposing forces won't rest until he(Trump) is removed from office. In ANY way possible. The secret service has their job cut out for them. Let's hope they are not part of the deep state or compromised by other opposing forces.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well the Supreme court took a major hit on one of the Articles of impeachment.

They will be hearing and ruling on the case about Trumps tax records. Which means that "Obstruction of Congress" because of not following thru on Congressional Supoenas isn't "obstruction". The court said he has a right for the court to hear the case and pass judgement. Which Turley stated in his testimony.

So that article should be tossed ASAP.

Again there hasn't been a ruling if he has to follow thru. But it just shows you that Trump and anyone who is Subpeonaed by congress has a right to take it to court before following thru with it. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jiuliani says the prosecutor that Biden got fired was poisoned and died twice, but was revived. Move over Hillary.

So once again the democrats are doing what they accuse others of. Jiuliani wants to present the evidence he found in the Ukrain to congress. It's time to take out the trash, hopefully via a long prison visit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I watched Jiuliani on FOX tonight and not only Biden, but maybe up to a dozen democrats are toast. Four Ukrain officials wanted to come and testify and the were denied visas.

This may give liberals pause to engage their brain cells. One democrat in congress has switched from democrat to republican and now Minnesota's Collin Peterson is considering doing the same. If he stays with the party he will vote against impeachment.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

It will be interesting what all comes of what Guillian has "found" or not.

I watched some of the same stuff. I am taking it with a grain of salt as of now.

But with the stuff that has come out with the IG report and what possible will come out with the next two reports.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sen. Dem's are screaming that they need new witnesses for the "trial" in the Senate. So does that mean the case that the House Dems put up isn't strong enough???? oke:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

As far as I'm concerned, the dems have had the opportunity to prove their case in the house of representative (ie the schiff show). 
No more witnesses for them, they've had their say, now it's time for the republicans to call who they want to prove/disprove everything the schiff show claim.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have mixed thoughts about what the senate should do. I understand that Trump would like his day in court to prove the democrats are complete liars, but there is also a benefit in the senate simply killing this nonsense quick. The American people are sick of this and want it over. Dragging it out would be making the same mistake the democrats are making. Also, it would give the democrats another year to drag this on and get free publicity akin to democrat advertisements. Either way the democrats will have a black eye. I'm sure they will scream unfair, but they blew everything they had and denied republicans everything in the house. They say they want more witnesses, but Trump can deny the senate witnesses the same as he denied the house witnesses. I have the feeling if they did have a trial Trump would have all his people testify. He simply denied the democrats because they wanted to set traps for his people. That and Trump simply didn't want to cooperate with a holes.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I agree with you also. If they don't kill it and they would have to be FAIR... IMHO. I hope they wouldn't pull the same crap the dem's did with Schiff and Nadler... ie: Not giving the minority any rights. The Justice overseeing the trial would also make sure it isn't slanted. So this way people cant cry "foul". Also this way during the campaign trail Trump and Repbulicans could state... see how the Republicans did a fair open hearing unlike the house. That would be good publicity.

But I agree that everyone is so sick of this and wants to move forward away from it. Everyone has been seeing it as a partisan BS or political BS that it is. So to move this country forward it should just be killed. Go off the evidence that was produced by the house (which is none) and get the vote overwith.

Side note.... to bring everything full circle.

Some Sen Dem's are screaming for Mc Connell to recues himself from the hearing already. Since he is talking with the Whitehouse on this. So goes back to my whole thing about people who have been screaming for "impeachment" since day one... should they recues themselves and abstain from voting? Should all of the 16 members of the judiciary committee have not voted or even heard the case for the articles of impeachment??? You see how the goal post are trying to be shifted by the Dem's again. You see the hypocrisy that is rampant. Just same goes for any Senator who said... IMPEACH should not get a chance to vote if they demand Mc Connell to recues himself. That would be 7 of the Senators who are running for president. They all have screamed "impeachment" on the trail and in debates.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

So if McConnel should recluse himself shouldn't all the democrats wo have already stated which way they will vote? A jury (senate) isn't supposed to go into a trial if they have already predetermined which way they will vote. Even if Trump was guilty none of this entire proceeding has even a remote sense of fairness our constitution guarantees us. In this case our forefathers mistakenly assumed our representatives in the house that would do the investigating and the senators that would serve as jurors would be honorable men... Sadly that is not the case...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota..... agree with you 100%.

I keep hearing people bring up the Mueller probe and Russia when they talk about this impeachment.

1. Mueller stated no collusion. So that isn't interference in our election on Trumps behave. They stated Russia interfered but for everyone.

2. Then now with the IG report showing the FBI or some in the FBI did horrible things... ie: Evidence suppression, changing emails to get warrants, omitting stuff from applications, etc. So should all of the Mueller Probe be considered BS? The 10 instances of "obstruction". Which BTW was all about if Trump could fire people or threaten to fire people. Looks like he should have fired them.

So how can they be bringing up Russia without looking at what is coming to light now plus the report and Muellers testimony.

Now if it is all about the Ukranian call... like mentioned before.... how many said IMPEACH way before any of this came to light? Now they cry foul when the Senate Maj. Leader states he will go off the evidence produced in the report and is speaking with WH counsel. They did the same with Clinton.... spoke to the WH counsel. Remember the WH counsel was involved in all of the Clinton impeachment. In this one they were not allowed at all in the House portion. But shows flimsy the case is when the Branch that is supposed to do the investigation, form evidence, make the case, etc... doesn't have all the ducks lined up and the Sen. minority leader wants MORE WITNESSES. That should tell you a lot.

I keep bringing up the IG report because remember the writer of the Report that all of this is based on (Schiff) said that FISA never abused things, down graded a report by the minority rep Nunes (when they had the same info infront of them), claimed he had Russia evidence and never showed it, fabricated a story to drum up impeachment (the call), claimed to be the new Ken Starr yet never testified about his report under oath, stonewalled all the minority witnesses, line of questioning and what questions could be answered, he didn't disclose his or his staffs contact with the WB until later, etc. If his case was so "IRON CLAD" why isn't he the one testifying, letting the minority bring in witnesses, allowing them to ask all of the questions they wanted, not doing everything in secret for fear of leaks (yet things leaked!!!), etc. He isn't passing any smell test if you ask me.

Again I am glad that the WB came forward and things were looked into. Which they should have... but again no impeachable offense.

They keep bringing up the fact that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate Biden and Bursima&#8230; for 2016 infractions!! This just shows you that if you do something wrong or it looks like you might have... just run for president and the government shouldn't investigate. :bop:

When they have to bring in a "Scholar" to talk about how the president is using the "royal" we as a defense for bringing up charges you should see it is BS.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am watching the vote and comment on NBC right now. I am shocked that with all the democrats in the house there is not one with any integrity. Every one gets up and lies. This swamp needs draining even more than I was aware of.

The democrats say they are protecting the constitution yet the truth is they do not respect it, perhaps even hate it, and are perhaps irreversibly damaging it. They are United States house representatives and they want to impeach a president for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. The fools think they are all powerful and everyone answers to them. The president need only respond to their subpoena if they take it to the court and the court agrees. I guess I am preaching to the choir, everyone here has more brains than any democrat in Washington.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Well, the democraps went and really did it. No future president will ever be safe again.
Now the rumor is peloski isn't going to take the articles of impeachment to the senate unless the democraps get their way. uke: 
nuttin but a charade


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Any guesses as to how many read the entire 658 pg impeachment report. I'm guessing zero... I'm guessing at least 50% never read more than the front and back page..... While Gabbard ,may have voted present as a political stunt Im impressed that she stated this was a partisan action....

So now that the house has done their due diligence will the ethics committee now be investigating and hearing the MANY ethics complaints about it's democratic members that have gone unanswered ? Cause no one is above the law and fair is fair, correct. Add Biden to this list also.

The next democratic president better be clean as a whistle or the dems may find the republicans calling for impeachement before they even take office.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Speck...

I have been reading that too.  If that is the truth and she doesn't bring the articles to the Senate or tries to dictate what goes on in the Senate trial. That should show the population even more how this is totally partisan. It will show exactly why Hamilton and others farmers of the constitution were afraid of impeachment. How it would be used as a weapon politically.

I will tell you one thing about this impeachment that is good (well from my view point). I learned or "re-learned" a lot about civics. What I mean was the whole obstruction thing about Trump not following thru with the subpoena's. I either forgot or didn't know that you could have your day in court to see if you have to follow thru with Congressional Subpoena's. I also learn a lot of quotes from the founders and their views on impeachment. If you sat back and just listened to what both sides had to say (not listing to the evidence or facts) but the speeches. You learned a lot about our history and process. Now granted facts got in the way of the whole charade but it is a teaching moment for sure. I mean listening to Turley was eye opening. The other two spewed hate when they talked. Turley was calm and collective and gave an his opinion on process.

Now we will just have to see what happens next. If the articles go to the Senate at all. If the Senate does a "speedy" trial/vote or do they draw it out and drag our nation deeper. I hate to say it that if the Senate draws it out we could be seeing more of stuff we may not want to know. Remember when I stated about the Mueller Probe and how it is pushing us down a rabbit hole. Well look what has come out of that.... we have "impeachment" BS, IG report, Ukraine (and all the BS with that...ie: Burisma, deeper corruption, etc), Barr. and now just wait to see what Guilianni has to release or say. Don't know if Rudy's stuff is accurate or true yet... but only time will tell. It will show some major abuses. This is all good that we are finding this stuff out but it is tearing apart our nation. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The next democratic president better be clean as a whistle or the dems may find the republicans calling for impeachement before they even take office.


If it is Biden... they will. Just because of what is being found out with Burisma and him stating... "You don't get the money unless they are fired". Because it is the exact samething you can say about what Trump did. Yet his was an actual crime.

It will be interesting what they find out with all the ethics issues and the way they might unfold.

Like I mentioned in my previous post... this is a rabbit hole that might not see an end. It may drain the swamp and push our nation to vote for term limits. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just wanted to throw this out there.

Remember Pelosi and Schiff both stated they couldn't wait for the courts to decide and "there is no time to spare". Yet she is contemplating "holding" the articles of impeachment to "wait and see" how the Senate will conduct the trial.

Honestly... does this sound like they rushed everything? Like they have a "strong" case? etc...

I give Mc Connell credit when he stated that "the senate isn't hear to do the job of the house". Which is calling more witnesses for the "prosecution" to make a case. This should have all been done before the articles were voted on. :bop:

Because that is exactly what Shummer wanted is more witnesses for the "prosecution". They should have been called during the house investigation and judiciary. :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I would hope a trial in the senate follows the same standards any trial would in this country, but I get the feeling Pelosi and the democrats do not want that, and is probably why she is waiting to see how the senate is going to proceed. Strange how the house didn't want any outside help or interference in finding evidence and witnesses in their investigation but now wants the senate to call more witnesses. Sorry Nancy &#8230; the senate shouldn't have to do your job...&#8230;. If their case wasn't ready to go to the senate maybe they should have held off on impeachment. I may have gotten my law degree on TV but even I can tell this whole business stinks... As far as obstruction.. Under the law no person in this country has an obligation to provide information to the prosecuting body to incriminate or possibly incriminate themselves. Protecting ones self is not obstruction. While Trump may have ordered( or did he just recommend) some of his staff not to testify it possibly may have been to protect them also. Or maybe they just chose not to do so on their own. one mans request is another's order. Remember many of those who helped Trump previously were indicted for various minor crimes. Again not obstruction if they were protecting themselves. But that has been the democrats card....if yo don't cooperate (and possibly incriminate yourself) we will charge you with obstruction.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Agree 100%.

Like you stated if your "investigation" wasn't strong enough to go to trial (which is what happens in the Senate) it shouldn't have been charges brought up.

Also what gets me is how can someone dictate how something will go in the other branch? I too hope if it goes to the Senate it is done fairly. I don't want BS like what happened in the house. But call the same exact witness lists that ALL the parties wanted. Remember the Republicans got no witnesses they wanted. The ones they got were the ones that were on the Dem's list too. Then make Schiff answer for his investigation and report.

There is also some interesting things now coming out with the IG report by Horowitz and now more "speculation" on what Durham will unveil. Some people I think are very nervous. Comey finally came out and said there was "wrong" doings with FISA applications and the process. Mc Cabe is now publicly saying the same stuff. So again any reference to the Mueller Probe should now be looked at differently. It is like "tainted" evidence in a criminal trial. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is something to think about....

****ALERT CONSPISAY THEORY****

Is Pelosi holding onto the Articles now awaiting to see if the Supreme Court will rule Trump have to give into the tax return subpoena. Because it would possibly mean he would then have to give in on the Schiff investigation. If this happens will they "re-open" the investigation. This way she can pander to a base saying... we didn't rush we "decided" to wait it out. Plus she appeased to the base of IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH. So this way she is playing both sides in her own party.

Just something to ponder... and yes it was slow ice fishing yesterday which made me think of that... LOL


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well another twist....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

A house lawyer is talking about another article of impeachment.... another obstruction clause and they are looking at trying to get more "evidence".

So is this why Pelosi is waiting? Or is this showing that the first two are bogus and they need more? Or is it showing HATE and they will stop at nothing to impeach trump? or Is it showing that they know they wont win in 2020 and are just getting ready to push impeachment again for 4 years?


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Yep, Yep, Yep and Yep.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

If i recall the constitution also gives us the right to a speedy trial. Trump has indicated he wants a speedy trial so by not sending this to the senate is the house violating Trump's rights ?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Don't let the media fool anyone on this new "bombshell" about Pompeo and others.

It was already brought up how they disagreed with Trump on holding aid. It is why the House should have waited until the courts decided if they needed to testify. So this is rehashing old news.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Something I have been seeing out there.

Adam Schiff is stating he doesn't need to testify in the Senate trial because "he isn't a FACT WITNESS"....

Ok lets look at this....

1. Yes he is a fact witness because he did an investigation and produced a report. So he needs to testify to that report, its validity, its procedures, its "facts" contained with in, his conclusions, etc. So he is a very important FACT WITNESS. Because his report is the basis for the articles of Impeachment. oke: :bop:

2. 99% of the "witnesses" used for the report, testimony, etc were not FACT WITNESSES. Was all he said, she said, or I thought, etc. So is he saying that those people don't matter? Again something he will need to answer too because of the report he wrote. Sorry but Ken Starr wrote a report and then had to testify. Any investigator in any trial tends to have to testify.

3. Why doesn't he want to testify if the impeachment is so "Iron clad" or that the President is breaking all these rules. He spent time and effort on a report and collecting evidence. Shouldn't he want to get that out there??? Wouldn't he want to back it up... .put his own words on it not the person he sent to testify during the house hearings. hmmmmm&#8230;&#8230;... oke: oke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He doesn't want his lies exposed for the world to see. For example he said that he doesn't know who the whistle blower is. If he testifies under oath and is asked that question he has two choices. Expose his own lies, or risk criminal prosecution if they find later that he lied under oath.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I agree with you on that.

But I also think he doesn't want to answer for his "report" and the process that he did to come to his conclusions. Because he will be asked.... Why didn't you allow XYZ witness to testify on behalf of the President or Republicans? Or why didn't you let XZY questions asked during the public hearings? Granted some will pertain to keeping the whistle blowers name "secret"... but some wont. It will have to do with how he hindered or didn't want to hear both sides of the story and come to a fair conclusion. He will have to answer as why he didn't want "white house counsel" present. He will have to answer to why the people he subpoenaed (and didn't show up and fighting in court) to have certain counsel present or the whole snafu of why they are taking it to court. :bop:

Plus he will have to answer why he summed up the conclusions he did for the articles. What facts were present to come up with Obstruction and Abuse of Power. I don't think he stands by any of this. Or he cant justify it. Just like if someone did a half assed investigation into a murder but didn't produce "hard evidence" but all hearsay... they have a harder time standing behind the work. I think he knows it was rushed and shoddy work. So he doesn't want to be under oath to defend it or answer for his BS interviews or talking infront of congress "paraphrasing" the transcript like he did. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:thumb: His whole process is questionable at least, beyond a doubt unconstitional.


----------

