Talk About Marriage banner

241 - 260 of 534 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,233 Posts
Many, perhaps even most, Republicans in Congress were anti-Trump even after the election. They only changed their outward appearance due to their constituents' approval of Trump's agenda.

Then there are those parts of the country that if congressman/women did not vote to impeach they too risk their political career.

We talk about Washington DC being partisan and divided, but really they are reflecting the nation as a whole. We are no longer divided on policies, we are divided on blind ideology. Everyone to their corner during both House and Senate hearings and again come November.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
I think your analysis is correct.

However, the standard by which you're basing your analysis would have disqualified the previous two presidents as well...with the exception of actions taken immediately after 9/11.

Clinton was the last President we had who could build consensus without a crisis.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Without question.

However it is interesting that Clinton could build consensus, but he got impeached by many of the same people that are about to let Trump off the hook for something that seems a lot smaller.

Fascinating.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,718 Posts
Without question.



However it is interesting that Clinton could build consensus, but he got impeached by many of the same people that are about to let Trump off the hook for something that seems a lot smaller.



Fascinating.
Both sides are hypocrites in this.

I can point to several examples of those advocating for that which they were vehemently against in the last impeachment...on BOTH sides.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
Both sides are hypocrites in this.

I can point to several examples of those advocating for that which they were vehemently against in the last impeachment...on BOTH sides.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
So what's a rational guy to do now?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
Let's bet a dollar.

If Trump wins in November the Dems will find something to start another investigation on Trump or something else to try and keep derailing him.
They aren't going to wait that long, nor will they ever stop until they lose their House majority.
I'm going to contribute all I can afford to help that happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,635 Posts
Discussion Starter #248 (Edited)
Looks as if the GOP firewall is finally cracking in letting John Bolton come out of obscurity and testify in the Senate Impeachment Trial!

I'll tell you what. Let both sides prepare their witness lists, put whoever is relevant to their case on them, then submit it before Chief Justice Roberts to unilaterally rule on matters of testimony and documentational relevancy, and treat this thing as a court trial with direct, cross, and rebuttal examination!

If not, then exactly what is it that they are so damned afraid of?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,061 Posts
Both sides are hypocrites in this.

I can point to several examples of those advocating for that which they were vehemently against in the last impeachment...on BOTH sides.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Can you give examples of hypocrisy on both sides.

i find it interesting that during 2015 when the GOP was in the majority in both houses, HRC was grilled to death. Hunter Biden was board member with Burisma at that time. Why didn't they investigate that then? or 2016; or 2017
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Both sides are hypocrites in this.

I can point to several examples of those advocating for that which they were vehemently against in the last impeachment...on BOTH sides.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Can you give examples of hypocrisy on both sides.

i find it interesting that during 2015 when the GOP was in the majority in both houses, HRC was grilled to death. Hunter Biden was board member with Burisma at that time. Why didn't they investigate that then? or 2016; or 2017
You can't be serious...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
Without question.

However it is interesting that Clinton could build consensus, but he got impeached by many of the same people that are about to let Trump off the hook for something that seems a lot smaller.

Fascinating.
Except Clinton actually committed a crime, lost his law license because of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
The reality is, it is all posturing, neither side really wants witnesses called. The last thing Schiff wants is to let the republicans call Michael Atkinson to the stand for questioning. There is a reason his testimony was sealed and the presidents legal counsel can't see it. It won't be good for Adam.

The republicans don't want Bolton or Mulvaney either. Even if as Allen D. pointed out yesterday, there is nothing illegal revealed by Bolton, it will just not look good. Besides I think Trump can just invoke Presidential priveledge on what Bolton can say and it will get upheld. If a president can't have private conversations with his NSA guy then who can he have them with. It would be a bad precident to start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
Except Clinton actually committed a crime, lost his law license because of it.
I'm struggling to understand your point.

While Clinton can no longer practice law in front of the highest court, it’s not accurate to say that he was disbarred from either the Supreme Court or from practicing law in Arkansas. Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, but he was not disbarred, and while Clinton did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court, he resigned before the ruling was handed down.

On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so.
No-one is disputing that he lied under oath, which was the reason for his impeachment and for having his law license suspended.

What I and some others are trying to say is that what he lied about was getting a BJ.

What Trump is currently lying about, and won't take the stand about, is why he held back the money for Ukraine, in violation of your national interest and stability of the region.

In my book, jeopardizing national security + using $400M to influence your election is a far bigger deal to your national interest than is lying about a BJ.

Which everyone involved concedes was wrong on Clinton's part, but is being deemed 'perfect' behaviour by the GOP and now Ken Starr, who says that abuse of power isn't impeachable... even though it formed much of his own impeachment against Clinton - that what he did regarding Lewinsky was an abuse of power.

Only Trump's legal team could come up with that one. In no universe does that make sense.

See the difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,061 Posts
You can't be serious...
Is that the best response that you can give us?

You don't ask what skills and experience that Jared and Ivanka bring to the jobs that father and FIL gave them?

And you should look up board members and trustees of companies, mutual funds and ETFs. There are a lot of people sitting on those boards that have no applicable skill and experience. I remember trying tot do the right thing by my mutual funds. And I kept wondering why is this marketing director running for a seat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
You can't be serious...
Is that the best response that you can give us?

You don't ask what skills and experience that Jared and Ivanka bring to the jobs that father and FIL gave them?

And you should look up board members and trustees of companies, mutual funds and ETFs. There are a lot of people sitting on those boards that have no applicable skill and experience. I remember trying tot do the right thing by my mutual funds. And I kept wondering why is this marketing director running for a seat.
All you have to do is Google Biden, Pelosi and any other D in politics in 1999 and compare their statements then and now, with Clinton's impeachment to Trumps and see the hypocrisy. Atleast lying under oath is an actual crime that was one of the impeachable offenses in 1999. The other was the all encompassing obstruction of justice which means nothing since executive privilege is a real thing.

As for the Trumps its nepotism plain and simple and completely legal. Same with Biden's son. Does it look shady as hell. Sure! Is it impeachable? Not a damn chance unless laws were broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,635 Posts
Discussion Starter #257
Looks as if another quid pro quo is being furiously bandied about as McConnell may well have to give up on John Bolton and Les Parnas as witnesses, but will probably only do so if Hunter and Joe Biden agree to testify to an already debunked and irrelevant matter. They also want Chief Impeachment Prosecutor Adam Schiff to testify!

Which Chief Justice Roberts would be more than qualified to make legal rulings on inasfar as admissibility is concerned!

Stay tuned! This is getting good!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,635 Posts
Discussion Starter #259
Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, is corroborating John Bolton's version of what happened and has now gone on record as saying in a Sarasota speech made earlier this morning that "at least John Bolton is believable!"

Now that ought to make Alan Dershowitz feel real good after his Impeachment defense argumentation last night!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
All you have to do is Google Biden, Pelosi and any other D in politics in 1999 and compare their statements then and now, with Clinton's impeachment to Trumps and see the hypocrisy. Atleast lying under oath is an actual crime that was one of the impeachable offenses in 1999. The other was the all encompassing obstruction of justice which means nothing since executive privilege is a real thing.

As for the Trumps its nepotism plain and simple and completely legal. Same with Biden's son. Does it look shady as hell. Sure! Is it impeachable? Not a damn chance unless laws were broken.
This one's my favorite example of the wild hypocrisy:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/impeachment-managers-lindsey-graham-video/index.html
 
241 - 260 of 534 Posts
Top