Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, snafu said: ... 2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses. There's no case and no proof. ... i keep hearing a lot about witnesses here. you hear the Dems screaming that even during Clinton's Impeachment they had witnesses. this is somewhat disingenuous in that, yes they had witnesses during the Clinton Impeachment but what they aren't telling you is that the only witnesses allowed were ones who testified during the Star investigation. no new witnesses were called. being as precedent is huge, i think this is what the Senate is going to try and adhere to. if there are new witnesses, the House can hear them and if warranted, vote new articles. that is not going to happen though, they merely want to 'Kavanaugh' Trump here. they think we're stupid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) Trey raises some good points here. can you imagine Bernie and/or Warren if the trial takes 6 months? ? second tweet though the first is relevant as well. https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1218217284038287365 Edited January 17, 2020 by Foxx 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: i keep hearing a lot about witnesses here. you hear the Dems screaming that even during Clinton's Impeachment they had witnesses. this is somewhat disingenuous in that, yes they had witnesses during the Clinton Impeachment but what they aren't telling you is that the only witnesses allowed were ones who testified during the Star investigation. no new witnesses were called. being as precedent is huge, i think this is what the Senate is going to try and adhere to. if there are new witnesses, the House can hear them and if warranted, vote new articles. that is not going to happen though, they merely want to 'Kavanaugh' Trump here. they think we're stupid. Yes, and you also get the Rand Paul, or the Ted Cruz response, which amounts to: If there will be witnesses (new or old) then don't expect Democrats to be calling the shots. Just because Schiff is a manager doesn't make him immune from being questioned. We are in weird world here. This isn't normal court procedure. It is a true blend. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, snafu said: Sorry, I'm a couple days late on this response. I will give your questions a go. Then I've got a couple for you. 1. So, do you think that one of the major players in the Ukraine story (Parnas) should testify in the inquiry as to what happened in this whole story? Yes and no. He should have testified at the "investigation" level, in the House Committees. However, and probably because he's got serious credibility issues, Neither Schiff nor Nadler chose to have him testify. Parnas did give materials to the House, so it isn't like he was a stranger to them. Now, AFTER the Articles of Impeachment were deliberated and voted upon you want to hear from Parnas and you think he's important to the prosecution of the trial against the President. You do realize that Parnas cane forward before the House Managers walked the Articles to the Senate. They could have taken his testimony during Pelosi's delay. I think they really don't want to hear from Parnas. 2. Do you deny he has been interacting with Rudy in regards to Ukraine on behalf of Trump? It seems as though he may have been. However, who cares? The Aid was released to Ukraine. There was no abuse of power vis a vis the aid to Ukraine. There's no requirement that the President host anyone at the White House. There's nothing preventing any President from wanting to root out an appearance of impropriety of a former V.P. who now is seeking to become President. Don't you want to know if Joe Biden is a crook? 2. Why do you think the Republicans don't want witnesses? I can't say for sure (I think some Republicans DO want witnesses -- but Democrats better be careful what they wish for) but I do believe that after hearing nearly all the witnesses that the House put on, there's nothing to rebut with witnesses. There's no case and no proof. 3. If you were accused of a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want someone who could prove your innocence to testify? (A) "prove your innocence"? There are a lot of countries in our world that require Defendants to prove their innocence. Thank God we don't live in one of those countries. (B) nobody has proved any guilt. (C) don't forget that this is a political process, not a judicial proceeding. Questions for you: (A) Why do you presume that Parnas is more credible than Trump? You responding "Trump lies all the time" won't cut it as an answer. (B) Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? You don't find it odd that the whistleblower won't come forward? (C) Do you want to hear from Schiff's staff -- or Schiff for that matter? It is pretty clear that there was a bit of coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff. (D) Do you discount the several times that Zelensky said that he wasn't pressured by Trump? (E) Impeachment is a purely political exercise. It seems that a great number of Politicians are staking their political futures on successfully being the ones to "bring down" the President for using hos power for political gain. Their official actions are blatantly undertaken for "political gain". There's no "high crime" here. There's no "misdemeanor" here. Why isn't this hypocritical bahavior on the part of Congressional Democrats? (F) Because of the flimsy nature of the two charges levied against the President, don't you find it uncomfortable that Congress is trying to disenfranchise the voters that put this President in office -- in an election year? Why not wait and see what the voters have to say? (G) Why do you only appear in PPP when you think someone's finally "got" the President? (H) Why did you call anyone who's questioning the House Democrats "stupid" or "evil" of both? WTF is wrong with you? (I) Why are you so sure of yourself? Shouldn't you be more skeptical since you've bitten on all the other "gotcha bait" in the past and nothing has come of any of them? WRT to the underlined part, no, they don't. He's their best shot at unseating Trump and all they care about is that he's protected from scrutiny over his corruption so that he can be the nominee and possibly oust him. Because the fact of the matter is that what he said (about withholding funds to Ukraine until they fired Shokin) is far worse than anything Trump has said. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1218210780744540160 https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1218264605874708484 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Dershowitz seems like an odd choice by Trump after allegations have been made against him by some victims of Jeffrey Epstein. IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, wnyguy said: Dershowitz seems like an odd choice by Trump after allegations have been made against him by some victims of Jeffrey Epstein. IMO. He's going to address constitutional issues only. That allows both Trump and him to stay arms distance from each other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1218533503522033665 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Byron York: Can Democrats produce a daily impeachment show? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 51 minutes ago, B-Man said: Byron York: Can Democrats produce a daily impeachment show? . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218658024971214850 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218658127358251008 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218658517831290885 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218658747301662721 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218658894811148292 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218668437490356224 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218679116943233024 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218679181736923142 https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1218679298334261248 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1218675524874059777 from the article: ... House Democrats issued a series of unconstitutional subpoenas for documents and testimony. They issued their subpoenas without a congressional vote and, therefore, without constitutional authority.” “They sought testimony from a number of the President’s closest advisors despite the fact that, under longstanding, bipartisan practice of prior administrations of both political parties and similarly longstanding guidance from the Department of Justice, those advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress related to their official duties,” the letter continued. “And they sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch’s confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign relations and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information.” “As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security,” the letter continued. “House Democrats also barred the attendance of Executive Branch counsel at witness proceedings, thereby preventing the President from protecting important Executive Branch confidentiality interests.” Trump’s legal defense team said that the administration “replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects.” “Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court,” the letter concluded in its attack on the second Article of Impeachment. “To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling. The House may not usurp Executive Branch authority and may not bypass our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Asserting valid constitutional privileges and immunities cannot be an impeachable offense. The second Article is therefore invalid and must be rejected.” ... Edited January 19, 2020 by Foxx 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) https://twitter.com/hughhewitt/status/1218915933294604288 Edited January 19, 2020 by Foxx 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1218933045245435904 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Your Sunday Clarice................ CLARICE FELDMAN: The “Trump Grabbed Schrodinger’s *****” Theory. “He is not only the cause of all known phenomena in the universe but the cause of all potential phenomena as well.” As you may recall Schrodinger’s cat is a quantum physics paradox in which hypothetically a cat may be both alive and dead at the same time. My online friend “The Infamous Ignatz” offers up, quite rightly in my opinion, there is “The Universal Quantum Trump-Grabbed Schrodinger’s ***** Theory. He is not only the cause of all known phenomena in the universe but the cause of all potential phenomena as well.” Last week the theory was offered up as an explanation for the Iranian shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger plane. This week the Pelosi House sent up a grab bag of ridiculous claims to support their articles of impeachment, and in a tacit recognition that they are weak, kept adding to the charges with claims as dead on arrival as the articles themselves. This ploy served them ill in their effort to block Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and will not help them now. {snip} Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemingly concedes that the articles of impeachment are just a low opening bid to get the game going. “It’s not a question of proof, it says what allegations have been made and that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward, but it should not be ignored in the context of other events that could substantiate some of that,” said Pelosi. That’s not how it works. The House is supposed to pass such a serious matter upon proof, not wishful thinking by those followers of the Schrodinger’s ***** theory. How will the Senate now handle this? Will it dismiss these deficient articles out of hand or allow this game to continue? Arguing for impeachment will be Congressional “stars” Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Hakeem Jeffries, and Zoe Lofgren. Arguing against will be White House Counsel Pat Cippalone, Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, Pam Bondi, Robert Ray, and Alan Dershowitz. (Dershowitz has stated he will confine his role to arguing the constitutional issues involved in proceeding on impeachment under the circumstances presented.) More at the link: . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 "The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatever..." "... let alone 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying the election and subverting the will of the American people." So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate." . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 yup 7 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 Allen Dershowitz? Ken Starr? Those are the guys that defended Jeffery Epstein! No wonder Alex Acosta got a job with Trump. He was owed a favor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 41 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Allen Dershowitz? Ken Starr? Those are the guys that defended Jeffery Epstein! No wonder Alex Acosta got a job with Trump. He was owed a favor All kinds of posts bright and early on a Monday morning. Trying to get back on board at the cubicle farm? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 37 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: All kinds of posts bright and early on a Monday morning. Trying to get back on board at the cubicle farm? And on a Federal holiday. He's trying to impress someone. Maybe there's an opening for Commissar of the People's Committee of his Soviet Row 3A at the cube farm. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, /dev/null said: And on a Federal holiday. He's trying to impress someone. Maybe there's an opening for Commissar of the People's Committee of his Soviet Row 3A at the cube farm. He could afford to buy Campbell's Chunky Soup TWICE per week on that kind of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, /dev/null said: And on a Federal holiday. He's trying to impress someone. Maybe there's an opening for Commissar of the People's Committee of his Soviet Row 3A at the cube farm. You are so stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 Back to the thread...... Impeachment only unfair against Democrats. Charles Schumer’s 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him Original Article On Feb. 11, 1999 — one day before President Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate — Sen. Charles Schumer penned a passionate letter, outlining why the process had taken an unfair toll on the nation. He noted that the president believed he had not crossed a line, and praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate. He also cheered the American people for opposing impeachment. . 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 Full response from 45's legal team (171 pages) https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Back to the thread...... Impeachment only unfair against Democrats. Charles Schumer’s 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him Original Article On Feb. 11, 1999 — one day before President Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate — Sen. Charles Schumer penned a passionate letter, outlining why the process had taken an unfair toll on the nation. He noted that the president believed he had not crossed a line, and praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate. He also cheered the American people for opposing impeachment. . That's different because ... shuddup! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 Many Democrats, many Republicans, and Trump's new lawyer Alan Dershowitz had different views on impeachment when Clinton was tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 ^^^^^ Hey, wow, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 ^^^^^ You're welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Many Democrats, many Republicans, and Trump's new lawyer Alan Dershowitz had different views on impeachment when Clinton was tried. Perhaps it's because Clinton actually committed a crime? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Perhaps it's because Clinton actually committed a crime? In 1998 Alan Dershowitz said there does not need to be a crime for impeachment, though. That is Trump's current lawyer who is arguing the opposite today. Perhaps it's because people choose the side that most closely aligns with their personal interests. Edited January 20, 2020 by Gary Busey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: In 1998 Alan Dershowitz said there does not need to be a crime for impeachment, though. That is Trump's current lawyer who is arguing the opposite today. Perhaps it's because people choose the side that most closely aligns with their personal interests. Well, obviously true on that point, but Dershowitz is nothing more than a hired gun who will say whatever the one paying him wants him to say. It really bothers me, personally, that Dershowitz is even on Trumps law team. Edited January 20, 2020 by wnyguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 20, 2020 Author Share Posted January 20, 2020 Alan Dershowitz is a brilliant Constitutional scholar. This "Impeachment" of Trump is as unconstitutional as a kangaroo court and a lynch-mob. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Well, obviously true on that point, but Dershowitz is nothing more than a hired gun who will say whatever the one paying him wants him to say. It really bothers me, personally, that Dershowitz is even on this Trumps law team. Dershowitz is not exactly on Trump's team. His job is not to argue a case but to pontificate regarding the constitutionality of this particular impeachment. Dershowitz is a liberal but has decried the unconstitutional aspects of this impeachment from the start and has received personal backlash from it from liberals. Why not listen to what he actually says rather than skewer him now for it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Nanker said: Alan Dershowitz is a brilliant Constitutional scholar. This "Impeachment" of Trump is as unconstitutional as a kangaroo court and a lynch-mob. I agree with you about this impeachment fiasco, but to me the presence of Dershowitz sullies the whole thing for Trump. Edited January 20, 2020 by wnyguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Dershowitz is not exactly on Trump's team. His job is not to argue a case but to pontificate regarding the constitutionality of this particular impeachment. Dershowitz is a liberal but has decried the unconstitutional aspects of this impeachment from the start and has received personal backlash from it from liberals. Why not listen to what he actually says rather than skewer him now for it? They could have used pretty much any honest Constitutional Scholar -- or any good attorney at all for that matter. I wouldn't have chosen Dershowitz. Then again, I'm not in a position to choose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Dershowitz is not exactly on Trump's team. His job is not to argue a case but to pontificate regarding the constitutionality of this particular impeachment. Dershowitz is a liberal but has decried the unconstitutional aspects of this impeachment from the start and has received personal backlash from it from liberals. Why not listen to what he actually says rather than skewer him now for it? Because if I want to rake Clinton and the other politicians and Hollywood elite over the coals regarding their involvement in the whole Jeffrey Epstein crimes I have to include Dershowitz in that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts