Unimpeachable Trump

[SethBullock]

DonDeeHippy wrote:Now to Clinton He had sex with a woman, that was the business of Clinton, Monika and his wife, no one else....He lied to the public about a personal issue that really was no ones business.....So if Trump did the same thing, including committing Perjury, you would excuse him?

That isn't the point you keep saying if it was the other way around the republicans wouldn't of called for a Impeachment...
The republicans called for a impeachment when a President lied about a private matter that really was no ones business... It's that bad that when their own words are used against them from the Clinton days they run for cover... urple

Don, what I have said is that a Democratic House would never have impeached Hillary or Barack for the same thing, and, therefore, their impeachment of Trump lacks legitimacy.

So then you think Clintons Impeachment was not legitimate because the Democrats didn't ask for it why didn't you say that to begin with

Well if Barack or Hillary did the same thing and the Republicans asked for a Impeachment would that be legitimate..... urple

No, not if it was on purely party lines.

I have said before that if we really need to remove a president through impeachment, we, Republicans and Democrats, will know it, and there will be bipartisan support for it.

 

[SethBullock]

DonDeeHippy wrote:On the topic of Biden, yes why not ask Ukraine as a favour to USA and even offer to pay for the investigations and trails to find out what happened, I'm fine with that and I think it should be doneAfter all why Replace Trump with someone just as dodgy if Biden is guilty...

Funny, because that's what Trump said to the president of Ukraine. "I would like you to do us a favor ..."

You forgot about the part where he said, if you don't do it I Wont give your 140 millions dollars, even though the senate already said you could have it. It's my way or the highway.....
If Trump doesn't get convicted then it really just shows the world that American leaders can do what the fuck they want and there is no rules for them........
Tell me if you where a world leader and had to negotiate with Trump would your believe a word he said .. urple

But Trump never said that to President Zelensky

wow you better go tell everyone that Trump didn't do any of that and they should apologize and stop the impeachment.... urple

And that is why you don't impeach on flimsy charges out of hatred, out of retaliation, out of pure partisan politics. Because when you do that, facts don't matter.

 

[SethBullock]

The whole truth concerning Trump has been suppressed, and you seem to be acknowledging it.

What whole truth??

Tell me!

The truth according to Mulvaney and Bolton....that truth.

So you don't know.

And since you don't know, do you realize that all you're asking for is a fishing expedition?

That is not the role of the Senate, and it is not the reason why one calls witnesses. As a lawyer, you must know that.

You don't call a witness when you don't know what they're going to testify, do you counselor?

 

[DonDeeHippy]

DonDeeHippy wrote:Now to Clinton He had sex with a woman, that was the business of Clinton, Monika and his wife, no one else....He lied to the public about a personal issue that really was no ones business.....So if Trump did the same thing, including committing Perjury, you would excuse him?

That isn't the point you keep saying if it was the other way around the republicans wouldn't of called for a Impeachment...
The republicans called for a impeachment when a President lied about a private matter that really was no ones business... It's that bad that when their own words are used against them from the Clinton days they run for cover... urple

Don, what I have said is that a Democratic House would never have impeached Hillary or Barack for the same thing, and, therefore, their impeachment of Trump lacks legitimacy.

So then you think Clintons Impeachment was not legitimate because the Democrats didn't ask for it why didn't you say that to begin with

Well if Barack or Hillary did the same thing and the Republicans asked for a Impeachment would that be legitimate..... urple

No, not if it was on purely party lines.

I have said before that if we really need to remove a president through impeachment, we, Republicans and Democrats, will know it, and there will be bipartisan support for it.

So Clinton should of never been impeached... got it.. urple

 

[SethBullock]

DonDeeHippy wrote:Now to Clinton He had sex with a woman, that was the business of Clinton, Monika and his wife, no one else....He lied to the public about a personal issue that really was no ones business.....So if Trump did the same thing, including committing Perjury, you would excuse him?

That isn't the point you keep saying if it was the other way around the republicans wouldn't of called for a Impeachment...
The republicans called for a impeachment when a President lied about a private matter that really was no ones business... It's that bad that when their own words are used against them from the Clinton days they run for cover... urple

Don, what I have said is that a Democratic House would never have impeached Hillary or Barack for the same thing, and, therefore, their impeachment of Trump lacks legitimacy.

So then you think Clintons Impeachment was not legitimate because the Democrats didn't ask for it why didn't you say that to begin with

Well if Barack or Hillary did the same thing and the Republicans asked for a Impeachment would that be legitimate..... urple

No, not if it was on purely party lines.

I have said before that if we really need to remove a president through impeachment, we, Republicans and Democrats, will know it, and there will be bipartisan support for it.

So Clinton should of never been impeached... got it.. urple

I think most Americans found Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky to be deplorable. I know I did. And, I think his Perjury was also deplorable. But I also think that the American people as a whole felt that the sexcapade was between two consenting adults, and they could understand why a married man in a public position would lie about it. And I think they realized, that although both the sexcapade and perjury were deplorable, it didn't really have anything to do with his ability to execute the duties of the office, and so he was acquitted.

Times have changed, however. I think that if Trump did the same thing, the Democrats would gleefully impeach him, and I think he could be convicted in the Senate.

Should Clinton have been impeached? In a way, they almost had to. Even though it was over an affair, they did not want to send a message that a President may commit perjury. Perhaps a wiser choice would have been Censure. But I think he almost had to be impeached to find that out. Perjury is a high crime, and so I think it was necessary to impeach if for no other reason than to set a precedent. So the precedent was set that why a president does something illegal matters. And the other precedent is whether or not that thing that he did makes it impossible to further execute his duties. And the other thing we learned is that the impeachment must have bipartisan support.

 

[Aussie1]

The whole truth concerning Trump has been suppressed, and you seem to be acknowledging it.

What whole truth??

Tell me!

The truth according to Mulvaney and Bolton....that truth.

So you don't know.

And since you don't know, do you realize that all you're asking for is a fishing expedition?

That is not the role of the Senate, and it is not the reason why one calls witnesses. As a lawyer, you must know that.

You don't call a witness when you don't know what they're going to testify, do you counselor?

I don't, but you can be damn sure Schiff knows.

Call it what you want, including fishing expedition. Clearly Bolton and Mulvaney, being very close to Trump, have plenty they can add so that "We the people" get closer to the WHOLE truth.

 

[SethBullock]

The whole truth concerning Trump has been suppressed, and you seem to be acknowledging it.

What whole truth??

Tell me!

The truth according to Mulvaney and Bolton....that truth.

So you don't know.

And since you don't know, do you realize that all you're asking for is a fishing expedition?

That is not the role of the Senate, and it is not the reason why one calls witnesses. As a lawyer, you must know that.

You don't call a witness when you don't know what they're going to testify, do you counselor?

I don't, but you can be damn sure Schiff knows.

Call it what you want, including fishing expedition. Clearly Bolton and Mulvaney, being very close to Trump, have plenty they can add so that "We the people" get closer to the WHOLE truth.

So again, I ask you ... What whole truth? What do you think they know that we don't already know?

 

[SethBullock]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqbTva8UW4[/youtube]

 

[MilesAway]

Does hatty realise that being a retired white male with guns and ammo and a place to sleep(oh, wait, I think he(???) also said you had food to eat...) is a good thing? Or is he really just a whiny biatch? :jump :c :c :c :c :c C

 

[hatty]

Does hatty realise that being a retired white male with guns and ammo and a place to sleep(oh, wait, I think he(???) also said you had food to eat...) is a good thing? Or is he really just a whiny biatch? :jump :c :c :c :c :c C

wow that took a while drah......must be on the sauce again?

it was a comment about trying to see things from another persons perspective ....... it's called empathy.

today i think i shall be addressed as count whiny biatch

xo

 

[Aussie1]

So again, I ask you ... What whole truth? What do you think they know that we don't already know?

Trump denies there being a quid pro quo. Mulvaney and Bolton will have evidence one way or the other.

 

[DreamRyderX]

So again, I ask you ... What whole truth? What do you think they know that we don't already know?

Trump denies there being a quid pro quo. Mulvaney and Bolton will have evidence one way or the other.

If they, the democ-rats, had any scintilla of proof that President Trump initiated a quid pro quo, that would be tantamount to the crime of Bribery no?

Yet, in the Two (2) charges .....the Articles of Impeachment...... neither of those charges were for the crime of Bribery....in any way, manner, or form......why not?

In order to proceed with a charge of Bribery........even a suggested crime of Bribery.....in the Impeachment trial, the House must have had specifically included it in either of their two (2) Articles of Impeachment presented to the US Senate.....not just "FISH" for a crime to charge upon.

Again, under the US Constitution, no American Citizen, even the President, has to help the Prosecution prove their case......he can legally flat out refuse to answer any questions the Prosecution puts to him.......the total burden of proof is upon the Prosecution, & no American defendant can be forced to testify against himself. He can not be forced to incriminate himself. He can not be tricked into either by the Prosecution.......It's called the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is the Right of any American Citizen against Self-Incrimination.

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Aussie1]

So again, I ask you ... What whole truth? What do you think they know that we don't already know?

Trump denies there being a quid pro quo. Mulvaney and Bolton will have evidence one way or the other.

If they, the democ-rats, had any scintilla of proof that President Trump initiated a quid pro quo, that would be tantamount to the crime of Bribery no?

Yet, in the Two (2) charges .....the Articles of Impeachment...... neither of those charges were for the crime of Bribery....in any way, manner, or form......why not?

In order to proceed with a charge of Bribery........even a suggested crime of Bribery.....in the Impeachment trial, the House must have had specifically included it in either of their two (2) Articles of Impeachment presented to the US Senate.....not just "FISH" for a crime to charge upon.

Again, under the US Constitution, no American Citizen, even the President, has to help the Prosecution prove their case......he can legally flat out refuse to answer any questions the Prosecution puts to him.......the total burden of proof is upon the Prosecution, & no American defendant can be forced to testify against himself. He can not be forced to incriminate himself. He can not be tricked into either by the Prosecution.......It's called the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is the Right of any American Citizen against Self-Incrimination.

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And what has that got to do with Republicans suppressing the whole truth....which we will get closer to when we hear from Mulvaney and Bolton and anyone else who can add to the corruption which has been exposed.

 

[DreamRyderX]

.......And what has that got to do with Republicans suppressing the whole truth....which we will get closer to when we hear from Mulvaney and Bolton and anyone else who can add to the corruption which has been exposed.

And that will be long after the Political Senate Trial is over, & the Senate has fully acquitted the President on the non-criminal, totally partisan charges in the Articles of Impeachment, neither of which rise to the level of warranting the President's removal from Office. This political Impeachment Trial will be fully closed, & put to rest in 2 days.....

 

[Aussie1]

Yes it will but that does not end the quest to ensure ALL the truth comes out.....and it will. Trump may well be the subject of impeachment again before Nov 3. He might be the first POTUS to be impeached twice.

 

[DreamRyderX]

Yes it will but that does not end the quest to ensure ALL the truth comes out.....and it will. Trump may well be the subject of impeachment again before Nov 3. He might be the first POTUS to be impeached twice.

That's what he'd pray for....a second impeachment.....that would gather moderate democ-rats against impeachment to his side, along with all those stay at home Republicans, Independents, & Libertarians who haven't voted in years, to rally to his side, plus his base of new voters who got their first jobs because of Trump....etc....etc.....etc....Even though it wouldn't happen, I say bring it on, because nothing would taste sweeter that the Articles of Impeachment delivered to the Senate only to be summarily rejected by a solid majority, because this time they'd demand far, far better in the charges than the flimsy ones they horribly failed with this time.....they'd have to be 100% rock solid proven beyond any doubt crimes.....if not, they be gone with da wind on arrival fella......hell, those Republicans would be so damn mad, they'd reject them without any consideration whatsoever....the Constitution doesn't mandate the Senate take up the Articles for trial, only that the Senate has the sole power to hold a trial only if they want to.....they can simply reject them.....just because no one else could prosecute a trial but them.....& say it went all the way to a vote, think getting 20 Republicans to join then this time would have been a challenge, it be absolutely impossible in any subsequent impeachment!!!

 

[Aussie1]

Did you watch Schiff's summation today? I swear he is reading what I have been saying at the Yank Forum. His words....my concepts.

 

[DreamRyderX]

Did you watch Schiff's summation today? I swear he is reading what I have been saying at the Yank Forum. His words....my concepts.

His only Constitutional power rests in bringing in charges/Articles of Impeachment, but the trial....if it were even to happen, the trial rests all in the hands of the Republican Majority Senate......Schiff is totally powerless there.

 

[greggerypeccary]

 

[greggerypeccary]

Seth's (impeached for life) President.

Lol