Impeaching Donald Trump

[James Clark]

Some of y’all apparently need to have a look at your diets

[James Clark]

No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.

Yes, it absolutely does.

And you’ve seemingly gone full Trump.  Sad.  You may not realize it, but you continually give a pass (or slight mention) to Trump’s behavior while you declare less egregious Dem behavior to be unacceptable to you.   

Ponder that.

[LesPalenik]

In his signature fashion, he exhagerates. It is more like 5-6 times. I just caught myself doing it exactly that many times recently, on a toilet that had those two positions that are supposed to save water.

Almost as bad as in Cuba.

[BernardLanguillier]

No it does not. 

Schiff has proven himself to be incredibly corrupt.  He made up his own version of the phone call and only admitted to it when he was called out outside of congress, selectively leaked info to the press, refused to even allow certain lines of questioning, lied about not knowing the whistleblower after it came out his staff worked with the WB full 12 weeks before this whole thing started, and is now spying on republican lawmakers and conservative reporters. 

There is no reason I can think to cooperate with him.  He is running a kangaroo court that already determined the verdict.  Anything Trump would have done would have been spun by Schiff regardless of how innocent it was. 

Provide a fair arbitrator and you'll have a different opinion from me, but Schiff was far from fair.  He residing over the hearings help a lot with half the country becoming disillusioned with the inquir.

What does that have to do with anything?

He could be the devil himself, he will still ask questions and get answers from people under oath. And these answers will confirm that Trump did or didn't do what he is accused of (we already have at least one clear testimony that he did...).

Refusing to testify conveys the clear message that you have something to hide.

You realize that, by your logic, a president will never get impeached right? Since the process is by definition led by the party not being in office, you will always claim it is political (I assume whether it' a Republican or Democrat president being accused)... and this claim will always push you to refuse to testify, rendering the current impeachment process (defined by Republicans... you've got to love the irony) useless. Which is unconstitutional because the great founders have clearly made ground for the possibility of an impeachment.

You claim you love logic, I hope that you will have the honesty with yourself, if not with me, to acknowledge that you are caught in circular thinking.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

What does that have to do with anything?

He could be the devil himself, he will still ask questions and get answers from people under oath. And these answers will confirm that Trump did or didn't do what he is accused of (we already have at least one clear testimony that he did...).

Refusing to testify conveys the clear message that you have something to hide.

You realize that, by your logic, a president will never get impeached right? Since the process is by definition led by the party not being in office, you will always claim it is political (I assume whether it' a Republican or Democrat president being accused)... and this claim will always push you to refuse to testify, rendering the current impeachment process (defined by Republicans... you've got to love the irony) useless. Which is unconstitutional because the great founders have clearly made ground for the possibility of an impeachment.

You claim you love logic, I hope that you will have the honesty with yourself, if not with me, to acknowledge that you are caught in circular thinking.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not true.  Clinton was impeach and Nixon would have been because both parties in COngress saw real impeachable actions by the presidents.  With TRump, it's been all about Democrats finding something for the last three years to make an impeachment stick.  That's political and has nothing to do with wrongdoing.  It's just politics.  Hopefully the people will see it as such, as least the independents. 

Regarding speaking when  you're not guilty.  Prosecutors are not your friends.  They're not interested in fairness, only in getting you to be found guilty.  That's why you should keep your mouth shut even when you're innocent.  Any lawyer will advise their client not to testify if it can be avoided.  General Flynn whose life has been destroyed because he willingly spoke to the FBI, may now get off because the prosecutors in his case withheld information that the FBI believe what he said.  Obviously they twisted everything around in order to get him to say something bad about the president, which he didn't.  So they punished him and now he's destroyed financially and his health has been broken, a man who served this country for over thirty years.  They kept exculpatory information from the court that would have cleared him, an improper and illegal action on their part.  That's why you don't talk to these people.  They're not your friends even if you're innocent. 

Testifying before congress ism worse.  The politicians there are only there to make speeches to make you look guilty and stupid.  Those kind of things cannot happen in a real trial.  Judges would stop it.  So even i\f you're innocent, the Democrats in this case would make your testimony look like you're guilty as sin.  Arguing that these people are guilty is just a Democrat ploy to make you look guilty even without testifying.  It just show you how unfair they will be if you are stupid enough to actually testify in front of them.  Stay home and watch TV where other people are going to look like fools up there. 

[Alan Klein]

Almost as bad as in Cuba.

Well, there, it's just bad plumbing.   

[BernardLanguillier]

The only thing the impeachment of Clinton shows is that Democrats have a higher understanding of their duty to respect the intent of the founders. Instead of attempting to prevent the process at every step of the way.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Political infighting is normal. Using the power of the state to benefit you personally is not.

I know that you understand this, stop pretending that you don't.

As I (and others) have said before, if Biden did something wrong, then sure, go after him too, what do I care about Biden. But whether or not Biden did anything wrong is immaterial. If Trump really thought Biden was dirty, he had plenty of investigative power and agencies at his disposal, all he had to do was do it.


Btw, I see from his statements at the NATO talks that Trump thinks that the oil in Syria or anywhere else is his. Do you not have a problem with this? Why not?

Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way.  He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it.  We don't need Syrian oil.   Nor would we take it.  You're insulting him and us.   We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA.  Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?   

[Alan Klein]

The only thing the impeachment of Clinton shows is that Democrats have a higher understanding of their duty to respect the intent of the founders. Instead of attempting to prevent the process at every step of the way.

Cheers,
Bernard

No.  You're wrong.  Again.  Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath.  His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.

In the Nixon case, which you didn;t respond to, Republicans were the ones who told Republican President Nixon that he had to resign because Republicans were going to vote to impeach him.  That's not happening with Trump because this impeachment is all political.  The Democrats have been trying to impeach him for three years without any crime.  They've been on a witch hunt.  Republicans understand their phoniness.  It's only Democrats who want to impeach showing how weak their case for impeachment really is.  This was not true in the Nixon and Clinton situation although personally, I didn't;lt think Clinton should be impeached even for perjury because he was lying about cheating on his wife, lying which is understandable if illegal.   

[BernardLanguillier]

No.  You're wrong.  Again.  Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath.  His license to practice law was taken away from him because he perjured himself.

In the Nixon case, which you didn;t respond to, Republicans were the ones who told Republican President Nixon that he had to resign because Republicans were going to vote to impeach him.  That's not happening with Trump because this impeachment is all political.  The Democrats have been trying to impeach him for three years without any crime.  They've been on a witch hunt.  Republicans understand their phoniness.  It's only Democrats who want to impeach showing how weak their case for impeachment really is.  This was not true in the Nixon and Clinton situation although personally, I didn't;lt think Clinton should be impeached even for perjury because he was lying about cheating on his wife, lying which is understandable if illegal.   

Ok, I acknowledge I was wrong on Clinton.

But... wait... to be able to lie under oath... he had to have accepted to testify right?

Is there something in the law that forces a president to testify or was that a voluntary move?

If it’s the latter we have indeed obvious evidence that the Democrats, starting with a President himself, had a behaviour much more respectful of the intent of the founders.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Some of y’all apparently need to have a look at your diets

Diets, and plumbing.

I hate these two-position flush mechanisms. They are in almost every toilet it has been my misfortune to have to use when out of the house, and hey, even there, one of the loos employs them. The half-button on the right is supposed to give a light flush and the other the full dose. It sometimes works and sometimes not. I have to wait until the water has stopped running just to be sure that the button has settled properly and is not just pretending. If I don't wait, I can later discover that the water has been running away for hours.

The other loo employs the original system, which consists of a pull-up knob that slowly falls down to its normal resting place when the water level permits. It's a cinch to fix whenever it goes arwry, whereas the two-part release of the other is a nighmare of lousy logic that often reminds me of LuLa discussion.

Waddya gonna do?

;-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Another great example of the failed "drain the swamp" policy!!   Medicare chief Seema Verna requested that taxpayers reimburse her for $47K for items stolen from an SUV that took her to a speech (left unsaid is why anyone would be so foolish to leave such valuable items that included an Ivanka Trump pendant in a car).  The property was not insured and the government ended up reimbursing for only $2K (a real bargain).  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/medicare-chief-asked-taxpayers-to-cover-stolen-jewelry-077761    This is on top of the over $2M she wanted to spend on public affairs consultants to "burnish her brand."

[Alan Klein]

Another great example of the failed "drain the swamp" policy!!   Medicare chief Seema Verna requested that taxpayers reimburse her for $47K for items stolen from an SUV that took her to a speech (left unsaid is why anyone would be so foolish to leave such valuable items that included an Ivanka Trump pendant in a car).  The property was not insured and the government ended up reimbursing for only $2K (a real bargain).  https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/07/medicare-chief-asked-taxpayers-to-cover-stolen-jewelry-077761    This is on top of the over $2M she wanted to spend on public affairs consultants to "burnish her brand."

Alan I'm not defending stupidity.  Why anyone would have $47K in uninsured jewelry on a trip is bizarre.  She should have included it with her home insurance as a rider.  But the $2K the government reimbursed was not for the jewelry but for other things.  It's standard governmental policy to reimburse government workers for stolen things if they were stolen on an official government trip.  The article didn't say what the loss was for.  But if it included a laptop and other similar stuff, $2K seems reasonable and reimbursement seems appropriate.  You seem to be making a federal case out of it.  Oh, it is a federal case.

[Robert Roaldi]

Just curious if you complained when Obama used the IRS to go after political opponents?  How about when the Democrats went after TRump for colluding with the Russians where people like you accused him of treason?

You're assuming I take you at your word that Obama did that. Why wasn't he impeached at that time then if it was so well known.

When did I accuse Trump of treason? WTF are you talking about, making stuff up again.

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump never said Syrian oil is ours. As usual, the press interprets his words in a negative way.  He means that we won;t let ISIS grab it, that we'll protect it.  We don't need Syrian oil.   Nor would we take it.  You're insulting him and us.   We're the world's largest producer of oil here at home in the USA.  Did we take Iraqi oil when we conquer that country?

Here's the news item I saw, pretty damning quotes. OTOH, I am beginning to doubt he understands what he is saying most of the time, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900, which would normally be worrying, but it's the new normal now for the US President to say batshit crazy things.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok, I acknowledge I was wrong on Clinton.

But... wait... to be able to lie under oath... he had to have accepted to testify right?

Is there something in the law that forces a president to testify or was that a voluntary move?

If it’s the latter we have indeed obvious evidence that the Democrats, starting with a President himself, had a behaviour much more respectful of the intent of the founders.

Oh, please, Bernard, your desire to twist the facts to fit your narrative has become comical. Clinton didn’t “accept” to testify or did it voluntarily during the impeachment process. He was impeached for lying under oath in an earlier sexual harassment case. It was a civil case brought by one of his many paramours. In that case, he was deposed under oath. Not during impeachment.

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh, please, Bernard, your desire to twist the facts to fit your narrative has become comical. Clinton didn’t “accept” to testify or did it voluntarily during the impeachment process. He was impeached for lying under oath in an earlier sexual harassment case. It was a civil case brought by one of his many paramours. In that case, he was deposed under oath. Not during impeachment.

OK, got it, thanks.

I guess we understand clearly now why Trump will never accept to testify on the current case during the impeachment hearings...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

You're assuming I take you at your word that Obama did that. Why wasn't he impeached at that time then if it was so well known.

When did I accuse Trump of treason? WTF are you talking about, making stuff up again.

Obama was smarter than Trump.  He knew to keep direct fingerprints off of the crime.  His administration blamed overzealous employees of the IRS for doing the dirty deed. 

Sorry for saying you called Trump a traitor.  I confused you with most Democrats and Trump haters who did.   

[Alan Klein]

Here's the news item I saw, pretty damning quotes. OTOH, I am beginning to doubt he understands what he is saying most of the time, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-syria-oil-kurdish-turkey-trudeau-1.5387900, which would normally be worrying, but it's the new normal now for the US President to say batshit crazy things.

I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS.  Looking for other meanings is the media pastime for looking for anything that they can twist into something negative about TRump.  Do you really think Trump is going to send oil trucks and ships into Syria to extract the oil and send it back to America?  No wonder you believe everything the press says.  Use a little discernment.  You're smarter than that. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I told you he meant that America is protecting that oil from falling into the hands of our enemies like ISIS.

Didn't he say that ISIS had been defeated? Then why stay?