North Korea and US politics

[mack341]

I'll quote Moscow Mitch: "I will do everything I can so Obama will be a 1-term president." ......Geez mack, take your blinders off!

And no, the Ukrainians do not have to testify. It is plainly to establish whether Mr T tried to engage a foreign power to help with his political campaign. Whether the Ukrainians did or not, does not matter. Trying to rob a bank is a crime even if it fails.

FYI, impeachment in the House is a political process, not a criminal trial.

The trial will come in the Senate.

The Republicans had no issues which such a process when they impeached Clinton or investigated Hillary for that matter. You can watch some of the hearings from Clinton's impeachment and you will realize that it was in no way different.

The majority in the House is driving the process in the direction they want. It is how the framers of the constitution thought it would be, that is why you have a trial in the Senate where you will need a 2/3 majority.

If this is a kangaroo court, what was Hillary's countless Benghazi investigations or Clinton's impeachment in your view? BTW, just for FYI. The Republican majority cut the funding for embassies years before Benghazi happened and then tried to blame Hillary and Obama for not doing enough.

I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...

 

[Harry_BKK]

I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...

Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings/investigations that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant that now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president?

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.

 

[mack341]

Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was in not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant the now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president?

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

 

[Harry_BKK]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

When the House majority puts it up to an impeachment vote. Could be two weeks or two months. Nobody can really tell.

There is a strong ABT (anyone but t) sentiment, yet that is concentrated in the urban areas. The electoral college will still decide who wins. And at the moment, he can still win another term.

So yes, the Ds better field a good candidate that most Americans will like and can relate to. I don't see Warren or Sanders being able to do that beyond their base. Harris somehow dived into oblivion. So, Biden or Buttigieg. I know who I would vote for because IMO senile 70+ candidates should not be president of any country if you want to lead in our fast-changing world.

However, I can see Biden being the candidate as his appearance conveys calm waters after four years of hurricanes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".

 

[Kroffe]

One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".

Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.

Yeah, but Mr T is also known to cave like a coward when push comes to shove.

E.g. the countless lawsuits he bragged about that he would win in heartbeat but then settled out of court.

I think it would be more along the line: "You all know I would go for a second term to keep fighting for you (and all the other nonsense he keeps lying about) but the doctors say no. Not my decision."

But he will keep that as a last-resort option after he sees how the thing goes in the Senate. It would be then also a perfect reason for the next president (Pence until at least Jan 2021) to fully pardon him on health grounds so he wouldn't have to face the dozen or so cases that are waiting for him when he leaves the WH.

He just moved the official residence of his entire family to Florida, out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Too many coincidences for this not to be a Plan B.

 

[Tilter]

We need to bring it back to its roots.
More talk about dear leader!



View attachment 117764

I hope this appearance changing is legal he looks super funny

 

[vorcirion]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.

 

[mack341]

I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.

Impeachment should be about when the crime is of a potential level that both sides could at the end want the president removed, like nixon.

If the republican's call completely irrelevant witnesses then the dems can expose this in their questioning of said witnesses, it would actually help them to show the republicans are trying to deflect and be evasive [if that is what they're doing]

democratic congressmen jeff van drew:

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,"

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges," Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News at the time.

Other Democrats share Van Drew's concern that the impeachment inquiry is distracting Congress from focusing on important issues affecting the country, he claimed, but it boils down to the final vote.

“Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake,” he said, calling the process “hopelessly partisan.”

-----------------

There's no way the republican senators are going to go in the opposite direction to the republican congressmen, as Harry iirc seemed to feel was still a possibility yet, what we're seeing now is the party line, there's just not enough there. Trump sought the ukrainians to announce an investigation was being opened into his geriatric opponent's son, isn't enough for both sides to want to sack the president, elected by millions of patriotic americans, and who is just about to run for a 2nd term.

 

[vorcirion]

Impeachment should be about when the crime is of a potential level that both sides could at the end want the president removed, like nixon.

If the republican's call completely irrelevant witnesses then the dems can expose this in their questioning of said witnesses, it would actually help them to show the republicans are trying to deflect and be evasive [if that is what they're doing]

democratic congressmen jeff van drew:

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,"

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges," Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News at the time.

Other Democrats share Van Drew's concern that the impeachment inquiry is distracting Congress from focusing on important issues affecting the country, he claimed, but it boils down to the final vote.

“Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake,” he said, calling the process “hopelessly partisan.”

-----------------

There's no way the republican senators are going to go in the opposite direction to the republican congressmen, as Harry iirc seemed to feel was still a possibility yet, what we're seeing now is the party line, there's just not enough there. Trump sought the ukrainians to announce an investigation was being opened into his geriatric opponent's son, isn't enough for both sides to want to sack the president, elected by millions of patriotic americans, and who is just about to run for a 2nd term.

I don't think anything would be enough for the republicans to want to remove Trump. They are so scared of Trump's twitter account since it's enough to get them booted out of office. So what republicans do instead is defend Trump no matter what he does...whether it's criminal conduct or something completely against their own ideology. Republicans only care about staying in the power and they seem to go to any lengths to do that. I'm just happy that this impeachment process shows what exactly the republicans will defend and I hope it costs their careers and their senate majority.
Nunes didn't even bother asking questions from those witnesses. All he talked about was Biden and Burisma.

I'm actually curious how the senate trial will go. I'm pretty sure Romney will vote against Trump at least. His job is secure and he can do the right thing.

 

[mack341]

I don't think anything would be enough for the republicans to want to remove Trump. They are so scared of Trump's twitter account since it's enough to get them booted out of office. So what republicans do instead is defend Trump no matter what he does...whether it's criminal conduct or something completely against their own ideology. Republicans only care about staying in the power and they seem to go to any lengths to do that. I'm just happy that this impeachment process shows what exactly the republicans will defend and I hope it costs their careers and their senate majority.
Nunes didn't even bother asking questions from those witnesses. All he talked about was Biden and Burisma.

I'm actually curious how the senate trial will go. I'm pretty sure Romney will vote against Trump at least. His job is secure and he can do the right thing.

yeah the republicans aren't going to question in a way to get to the truth regarding the charge, the quid pro quo, because essentially the republican voting public wouldn't agree or understand why their president had to deposed because of that, it just doesn't reach that level where it had a negative impact on them, like embezzling govt money, receiving bribes for passing a law etc...

If the public view the charge as terrible and a very bad thing/trick for trump to have tried to do, then they have the ultimate power of impeachment at the ballot box. It may yet come about, but it's going to need a lot more gas to get the fire going than what so far has been revealed.

 

[sufferinsilence]

For anyone that still thinks the republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses to testify: both gentlemen that are testifying right now, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison, were requested by the GOP.

 

[mack341]

For anyone that still thinks the republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses to testify: both gentlemen that are testifying right now, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison, were requested by the GOP.

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

 

[sufferinsilence]

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

I don't know the procedure. My best assumption would be it goes to a vote amongst the ranking members of the committee?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Looks like even the most ardent supporters of Mr T are realizing that the call was not "perfect."



And Mr T not even capable of writing a name correctly. Plus, look at those rather messy hands and fingernails.

 

[sufferinsilence]

But Trump barely knows Sondland, who donated $1 million for his inauguration

 

[sufferinsilence]

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

I wanted to come back to this: according to representative Nunes yesterday the GOP has given a list of people they wanted to question to chairman Schiff. It seems the chairman then decides who he accepts or denies.

Now, as we know you can't just believe whatever they say but that was said during the impeachment inquiries last night.

 

[Harry_BKK]

And the GOP members realizing it too. Tried to find the moment from yesterday as I watched it live but only found it included in this video. Go to 06:28 to see the faces, especially Nunes. This was after the Ds questioned Sonderland for 45 minutes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I wanted to come back to this: according to representative Nunes yesterday the GOP has given a list of people they wanted to question to chairman Schiff. It seems the chairman then decides who he accepts or denies.

Now, as we know you can't just believe whatever they say but that was said during the impeachment inquiries last night.

It is the entire committee holding a vote. Two of the witnesses yesterday were from the GOP list. Others, like Hunter Biden or Chalupa were denied on a party-line vote.

 

[sufferinsilence]

And the GOP members realizing it too. Tried to find the moment from yesterday as I watched it live but only found it included in this one. Go to 06:28 to see the faces. This was after the Ds questioned Sonderland for 45 minutes.

You can see counsel for the minority Steve Castor looking at Nunes saying: "wtf can we do with this?"

 

[sufferinsilence]

It is the entire committee holding a vote. Two of the witnesses yesterday were from the GOP list. Others, like Hunter Biden or Chalupa were denied on a party-line vote.

So my assumption was closer to the truth then

 

[Harry_BKK]

You can see counsel for the minority Steve Castor looking at Nunes saying: "wtf can we do with this?"

Exactly. It is such a moment where you realize you are in "big doodoo"

 

[Harry_BKK]

So my assumption was closer to the truth then

It is of course partisan since the majority party has more seats on the committee. However, Nunes had no issue declining requests from Democrats during the two years he was the Chairman of the committee. Classic case of "what goes around, comes around".

 

[Harry_BKK]

You just can't make this stuff up.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.