Invite Friends

Topic: US Politics

Results in this view: Y-let Them Speak 70% - Convince Me 20% - N-investig. Over 0% - N-end This Joke 10%
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 9
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 45
Picture?type=square
  • 9
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson To not allow witnesses and evidence is the same as having criminal court with the prosecution saying "he's guilty" and the defense saying "No, I'm not" and then letting the jury decide from that alone.

If evidence and testimony from witnesses is NOT allowed, it is nothing more than a sham/kangaroo court.
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 4
Anonymous-user
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 51
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The House claimed an irrefutable case against the President, yet not having done the job, they now wish to reopen the investigative portion of the impeachment. They were not willing to allow any Republicans to call witnesses during their closed door investigation. Are the Democrats now willing to allow the Biden’s to be witnesses in return for Bolton and Lev Parnas?
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Obviously, you are believing the dishonest claims put forth by the current White House resident.

The "closed-door investigation" was not with only Democrats in attendance, but both Democrat and Republican. Both Democrats and Republicans were allowed to question witnesses. Equal representation was allowed, but Capt Cheeto did not take advantage of that little fact.

It is not a "re-opening" of the investigation but offering yet more evidence toward the situation - evidence which had come out which was pertinent to the case AFTER the two legislations were submitted.

About allowing the Bidens (no, not the Biden's - the Biden's what?) to be witnesses, remember that the issue is about Adam Henry, NOT the Bidens. The major question remains, why was your hero wanting to have ANY Biden investigated other than to bolster Captain Cheeto's "edge" on the upcoming election? That, Mark, is illegal to ask ANY foreign government influence on any election in the US. Yet, your hero asked not ONLY Ukraine but China, Russia, Japan and Australia for any assistance in that illegal act.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey When and were did Trump ask a foreign power to help in his re-election? Produce the speech or documents to support your claims.
The Biden’s are relevant because of the actual public speech in which Joe Biden, while holding the office of ice President, bragged about withholding US funds from Ukraine until a particular government official in the Ukraine was fired. This Ukrainians officials firing lead the way to the hiring of Bidens son Hunter, by a Ukrainian energy company. It shows recent precedent for the actions you claim Trump of committing illegally, as well as the hypocrisy of the entire impeachment.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Thank you for asking, Mark, for citations and references. You have yet to offer anything, but I shall not let that hinder my offering what proof there is about your hero.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6429015-Trump-Ukraine-Transcript

About asking Zelinski for favors - illegal

Specifically,

""I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine ... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... it sounds horrible to me.""

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/03/trump-biden-china-investigation-demand

Your hero asking China for more political dirt. Also illegal.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-asked-australian-prime-minister-help-investigate-mueller-probe-origins-n1060526

Asking for help in the investigation to the Mueller probe to Australia.

When ANY POTUS asks for political "dirt" to ask for another country to insult a competitor in the race for POTUS, that is illegal.

Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The President has a right and legal responsibility under a treaty passed in the US Senate by a 116 to 6 vote and signed with the Ukraine to inquire and investigate matters of illegal activity and corruption in matters between the US and Ukraine. The following is portion of that treaty:
“The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal
matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have
entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty
with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the
United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and
prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be
self-executing and will not require new legislation.
Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets,
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters,
which may be civil or administrative in nature.”
The entire treaty can be found at https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text
So, the text of the Presidents call does not show that “dirt” Was requested, nor was the threat of aid being with held, if such a conversation was held, it would be within the limits of the US / Ukraine treaty. If fact because the conversation did not explicitly request an investigation of Biden’s influence on the prosecution of a Ukrainian involved, a case could be made that Trump was guilty of NOT enforcing the treaty. Congress.gov, carries substantially more weight the NPR, The Guardian and NBCs opinion pieces.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - It does not include soliciting favors by foreign governments for negative information about an opponent to an election.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Every President solicits or responds to requests from other world leaders or movements. Obama actively campaigned against Netanyahu while in office as an example. Trump did not deny aid to Ukraine, so how is it possible to impeach he for an action that was not performed. As a frame of reference, Obama failed to defend Crimea state in the Ukraine from the Russian take over in spite of a treaty to provide that defense and did deny aid to the Ukrainians while he was office.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - To campaign (?) against the Netanyahu regime is not asking for political or financial favor.

On the day that Mr. 45 made the call with Zelinski, he HALTED illegally the funds that Congress had already approved. Nice try, but you are wrong about what he did and did not do.

Again, Drumpf asked for favors, which IS illegal.
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio What do you mean that they, the Democrats, haven't done their jobs? They PROVED that this, ahem, "president" (if you wanna call "it" that) is as GUILTY as sin!
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey To prove a claim you need first to have a law that was broken and then evidence proving the individual broke that law.
What law was broken leading to impeachment and what is the evidence incriminating Trump. Not opinions, here-say, second hand accounts, unnamed sources or differences of political opinions will serve as actual evidence.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman in order to be impeached no law needs to be broken
even that sissy from north carolina said so
what you need is to prove he abused the power given him as president, in a non presidential way oh say like blackmailing a world leader into fabircating crap against you political appointment in exchange for oh say vital military aid?
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - We can start with this:

Trump was impeached in December for an alleged scheme in which he pressured Ukraine to announce false investigations of the former vice-president Biden and then fought an inquiry into the scheme. It is ILLEGAL to ask for ANYTHING from another country to aid in an election.

Next,

The Trump administration broke the law by withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine over the summer “for a policy reason,” a top government watchdog said. The report by the Government Accountability Office came a day after the House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump to the Senate for conduct related to the withholding of that aid to Ukraine. Trump held back the funds while pressuring Ukraine’s new president to announce investigations by that country of former Vice President Joe Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The GAO report said Trump overstepped his authority. Congress has the power of the purse, the watchdog said, while the president has the power to accept or veto legislation passed by both chambers. But the president does not have the authority to then bend or ignore a law once it is enacted, the report said.

“The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law,” the GAO said. “The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation... Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound, or withhold, budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the ICA.”

I hope this helps you, Mark.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman he doesnt even have to break a law all he has to do is abuse power
use his powers in an grossly improper way
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey All I ask is for you to present me the nature of the crimes the proof of them being committed.
You can’t because there is no crime, therefore no proof. It is the prosecutions responsibly to provide evidence for a crime, not the prosecuted’s job to prove their innocence.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Abuse of power consist of the Democrats not liking Trumps policy decisions. This has been the case in every election since our republic was formed. If every President going forward is impeached on policy differences, we will no longer have a functioning Federal government.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Trump will not be formally Impeached unless the Senate finds him guilty of the charges.
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Mark, aren't criminal acts the same no matter who does them? Well, the lats time I checked, Extortion and Bribery were considered criminal acts.
But then again, I despise this malcontent so much that I'll accept ANY reason to toss him out on his ass, so I'm the wrong one to ask.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Vincent - Also, given how so many Republicans in the Senate have already decided that Mr. 45 is innocent instead of being objective, it is suspicious if laws will make much of a difference, sadly.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The is no charge of bribery or extortion against Trump which is why impeachment will fail.
Not liking an elected official does not give anyone the right to abuse and bend the law to their end.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman thats debatable because what he did fits neatly into those categories
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman well there should be
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - The charges are as follows:

Obstruction of Congress - illegal

Asked the Ukraine president for a “favor” — to announce it was investigating Democrats ahead of the 2020 election. He also pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to probe unsubstantiated corruption allegations against Joe Biden, the former vice president, and 2020 White House contender. Again, to solicit ANY benefit from another country relating to a US election. process. Extremely illegal.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey You cannot have a conviction without a criminal action, whatever Trump said or didn’t say, Ukraine got the aid and didn’t have to investigate anything to get it.
Abuse of power is not a crime, but the opinion of the opposition on policy.
Anonymous-user
by anon-eee0 The Democrats are gasping their last with this hoax trial. It is the culmination of a 3 1/2 + year repeated failure to undo the election.
This remarkably Democratic House was fully ILLEGAL, unconstitutional, cherry picked rules of procedure etc. ; not a legitimate trial. Why keep going?
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson anon - Exactly HOW has it been illegal? Specifics with citations, please.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Seventeen witnesses for the Democrats, Republicans not allowed any of their own witnesses. Closed door hearings with press not allowed.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Investigative meetings by police agencies are not made public, either. Republicans WERE allowed to question in these closed-door meetings.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The Presidents attorneys were not allowed into the proceedings, nor the press. The only information provided was strategic leaks by the Democrats..
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Irrelevant. The ONLY people being allowed in the room on the first meeting were BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS from the House of Representatives. When the police are investigating a crime, they do not allow attorneys in those meetings, either. So what?

Remember, there were also Republicans in this meeting as well. Therefore, your claim is invalid.
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Dude, the Constitution provides no procedure. It just says the House has SOLE power over impeachment. And the Senate has SOLE power over the trial.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman we need a new constittution
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris No, we just need to obey the current one.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson William - Don't you love how so many people say that we must use the current constitution and it should never be changed, yet how many different amendments have there been, which are changes to it?

History - a curse on those who dislike facts when they are inconvenient.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey No, we need to follow the one we have, that has been done less every year and no one challenges the breach of law.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Change is allowed by the procedure described within the Constitution itself, but it is a difficult process and is designed to be to prevent knee-jerk reactions to fleeting political pressure and events. If you want change, then follow the procedure if you can get enough support of the nation to agree with you.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Congress does not require the support of the people of the nation. This has been obvious since the 2016 election when the public's vote did not count.

When was the Constitution changed out of a "knee-jerk" reaction? Never.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Congress does require support of the people. As a representative republic they are elected by those people. Half of Congress did not agree with the impeachment charges after a House case was case was made.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Yet, ¾ of the population of the United States DEMANDED evidence and witnesses be presented at the Senate meetings. Did the Republican representatives represent their people? Absolutely NOT! So don't give me the lie that they merely represent the people. Today's people in government are representing themselves and what will give them benefits. In the case of the Republicans, also remember that "Republican senators told their heads ‘will be on a pike’ if they vote against Trump."
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i'd love to be like switzerland and put everythng to a vote!@
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman lets not forget that trump LOST THE POPULAR VOTE BY 3 MILLION the largest loss that every eneded in a win
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey “Yet, ¾ of the population of the United States DEMANDED evidence and witnesses” The House, which is responsible to investigate and present the case for impeachment to the Senate, did not call all the witnesses it is now demanding, they failed their duty.The House, also failed to present any credible evidence of wrong-doing by the President. Why retry the case in the Senate when the House failed so completely to do its job? If they make the claims do wrong doing by the President, they need to prove it conclusively. Charges made by an unnamed, unquestioned whistle-blower with third hand testimony, just doesn’t cut it. You are also naive to think that Queen Nancy didn’t offer the same spike for the heads of Democrats who didn’t vote the party line.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Yes, but in a Representative Republic, the state electors are voted for in an election and they in turn vote for the canidates. This is based on 200+ years based of Constitutional law. If you wish to amend the Constitution on that point , the is a legal mechanism for that.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey You live in a relatively free nation and can leave for Switzerland anytime you wish. It is easier to do that then to change minds of 330 million in the US to adopt a pure democracy. You also need to remember that Switzerland lacks the ethnic, racial, religious, cultural and political diversity found in the USA.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - last comment about this issue: While there may be 330 million people in the US, they are not all for the way things are at the moment. The majority prefer changing the system from the Electoral College to political representation directly.

Nice try, Mark.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson What is NOT being followed? Specific examples, please.