ITT- Liberals explain why the current impeachment proceedings are fair and Democratic

[dabbmw2002]

Go!

[Tehcelltech]

Because reasons and orange man bad.

/endthread

[GreatOldOne]

The Republicans changed the subpoena rules.

Sucks to be them.

[semitope]

I'm not a liberal but I find it pretty sad you guys are still at the stage of asking these questions. You would not be this confused if it was the republicans investigating Obama for trying to extort ukraine to get dirt on trump. Its simple

Trump abused his power multiple times but he made the mistake of doing it with US foreign policy in a way that leaves many witnesses. Now he's being investigated and because its an investigation, the house is doing it the way a special counsel would (Barr, trumps man in the DOJ, refused to investigate it). That is all.

[Seatard]

LOL Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haha.

Where does it say anything about being fair?

[jeffl1980]

I'm not a liberal but I find it pretty sad you guys are still at the stage of asking these questions. You would not be this confused if it was the republicans investigating Obama for trying to extort ukraine to get dirt on trump. Its simple

Trump abused his power multiple times but he made the mistake of doing it with US foreign policy in a way that leaves many witnesses. Now he's being investigated and because its an investigation, the house is doing it the way a special counsel would (Barr, trumps man in the DOJ, refused to investigate it). That is all.

Can you copy and past the part of the transcript that proves Trump abused his power?

[dabbmw2002]

Not a good start....

[Procta]

Libs in the R&P when this question arises

[Sakeoe]

That's gonna be a long wait OP. I'm still waiting for libs to explain to me why presidential candidates are supposedly immune from crime-prosecution or investigation as if they have some sort of diplomatic immunity.

[Spahgetti]

Getting real sick of this chit srs.

..

[dabbmw2002]

That's gonna be a long wait OP. I'm still waiting for libs to explain to me why presidential candidates are supposedly immune from crime-prosecution or investigation as if they have some sort of diplomatic immunity.

They seem to be conflating(purposely), investigating a potential crime vs collecting dirt. The Dossier, is an example of collecting dirt. AG Barr investigating in Ukraine is NOT collecting dirt

[Seatard]

Not a good start....

I'll help y'alls discussion get started with what is hopefully an easily understood picture.

[GreatOldOne]

They seem to be conflating(purposely), investigating a potential crime vs collecting dirt. The Dossier, is an example of collecting dirt. AG Barr investigating in Ukraine is NOT collecting dirt

He's not getting impeached because of Barr.

[dabbmw2002]

I'll help y'alls discussion get started with what is hopefully an easily understood picture.

Nope. Not an answer. I do however appreciate you posting that which shows why many of the issued subpoenas are illegitimate

[semitope]

Can you copy and past the part of the transcript that proves Trump abused his power?

https://time.com/5707713/bill-taylor...hment-inquiry/

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw.
Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would
not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.
I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation.

This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not
just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations.

Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message
asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are
conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to
call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that
President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly
that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. election.

its funny that people talk about the "deep state" and those same people are ok with this. There was a shadow group operating on a separate foreign policy from that of the united states.

And yet, I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy
towards Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and
implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. As the Chief of Mission, I
had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of
the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and to help it defeat
corruption. This regular channel of U.S. policy-making has consistently had
strong, bipartisan support both in Congress and in all administrations since
Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991.

At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S.
policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I
subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani. I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was
also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland
included me in certain conversations. Although this irregular channel was well-
connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department
channels. This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador
Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron-Johnson briefed President Trump on
May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. The delegation
returned to Washington enthusiastic about the new Ukrainian president and urged
President Trump to meet with him early on to cement the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. But from what I understood, President Trump did not share their
enthusiasm for a meeting with Mr. Zelenskyy.

[jeepwrangler8]

its funny that people talk about the "deep state" and those same people are ok with this. There was a shadow group operating on a separate foreign policy from that of the united states.

It must be embarrassing being a fat beta male.

[dabbmw2002]

https://time.com/5707713/bill-taylor...hment-inquiry/



its funny that people talk about the "deep state" and those same people are ok with this. There was a shadow group operating on a separate foreign policy from that of the united states.

A partisan who has not been cross examined giving one side testimony is not a "transcript".

Try again.

[x-trainer ben]

Very simple, Impeachment is a Political act or process.
An impeachment Inquiry is the act of gathering information to determine if Impeachment is warranted.
They are still in the evidence collection stage or phase 1.
Fair is debatable at least in the way that you probably are using it.

[topperstyle]

This thread went exactly how I expected.

No direct answers.

Lots of deflection.

Lots of emotions.

[semitope]

A partisan who has not been cross examined giving one side testimony is not a "transcript".

Try again.

he's not a partisan. but anyone not loyal to your fuhrer is a partisan to you so its w.e. Every patriot is a poartisan to the cultists because they won't lie to protect a corrupt president.

I have dedicated my life to serving U.S. interests at home and abroad in both
military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I
have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and
Democratic, since 1985.

For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an
infantry officer for six years, including with the 101st Airborne Division in
Vietnam; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff;
then at NATO; then with the State Department here and abroad in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of
the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.

While I have served in many places and in different capacities, I have a particular
interest in and respect for the importance of our country’s relationship with
Ukraine. Our national security demands that this relationship remain strong.
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned
that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an
irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital
security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will
help the Committees understand why I believed that to be the case.

Normally this is the kind of guy republicans and right wingers would love. But as they turned on McCain, they turn on him. Because many have lost principles and joined the cult of trump.

the republicans were there to question him as well but they could only manage conspiracy theory questions according to reports. They are completely lost.

[Mark1T]

Dabbs, apparently you don't think too highly of Mr. Schiff

[Procta]

The Republicans changed the subpoena rules.

Sucks to be them.

these rules?

"The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas."

[dabbmw2002]

he's not a partisan. but anyone not loyal to your fuhrer is a partisan to you so its w.e. Every patriot is a poartisan to the cultists because they won't lie to protect a corrupt president.



Normally this is the kind of guy republicans and right wingers would love. But as they turned on McCain, they turn on him. Because many have lost principles and joined the cult of trump.

the republicans were there to question him as well but they could only manage conspiracy theory questions according to reports. They are completely lost.

Fuhrer? What else you got?

[semitope]

these rules?

"The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-trump-943265

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.

Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

highlighted that because some people here think its just the democrats that do this

[Kane_89]

OP getting nervous..

[backinbusiness]

Fuhrer? What else you got?

You mean one guys unsubstantiated evidence/opinion isn’t enough to impeach a President?

[semitope]

You mean one guys unsubstantiated evidence/opinion isn’t enough to impeach a President?

its always one guy to you people. multiple witnesses.

[Procta]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-trump-943265

highlighted that because some people here think its just the democrats that do this

House majority has always had 1st power of subpoena

impeachment proceedings is the topic this thread tho which needs to be bipartisian to even begin

[Ten_Hearts]

You mean one guys unsubstantiated evidence/opinion isn’t enough to impeach a President?

Isn't the point of an investigation to determine if there is evidence if a crime or action that is an impeachable offense?

[Procta]

Isn't the point of an investigation to determine if there is evidence if a crime or action that is an impeachable offense?

right and who gets to decide if a crime or action is an impeachable offence...is it solely the opposing party?