- Thread starter
- Banned
- #141
"Intent". LOL! That reminds of the excuse the filthy Obama Administration used to let Crooked Hillary off the hook for her crimes.
CDZ Impeachment Precedent
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
"Intent". LOL! That reminds of the excuse the filthy Obama Administration used to let Crooked Hillary off the hook for her crimes.
task0778
Diamond Member
True, even though the applicable law did not require "intent" to be established. Doesn't matter if you intentionally mishandled classified data or not, if you do so then you ought to be indicted and convicted. Since she was not indicted or tried, the Trump DOJ could charge her if she decides to run again. And in my opinion, they should indict her whether she runs or not.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 34,670
- 27,627
- 2,915
There is no real evidence for abuse of power or obstruction of justice. Democrats made it up.
Bruce_T_Laney
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #144
Wow, in the CDZ you have called me a liar a few times and yet all you have done is lie.
Please link where anything I wrote that is used by FOX News Corporation as talking points!
I do not use FOX News as a source and use POTUS and CSpan as my sources which is unlike you seeing you use the talking points of the DailyKos and Huffington Post!
Also Mueller made it clear that no vote was changed at all and it is also clear that many Americans had made up their mind but as usual you believe the Wikileaks dump was false news, so please provide links to support your notion and then explain why a few people lost their jobs over the Wikileaks dump because if it was fake CNN and MSNBC along with Huffington Post would have stated it and provided factual evidence but you know the Dump of the DNC server was not fake news and you are just upset you can not sell that load of nonsense of yours.
Also please provide where I support Trump?
I actually believe he should be Impeached and Removed but know that the evidence on Obstruction of Congress is weak and they did not Impeach him on Obstruction of Justice, so why even discuss it in this thread?
Oh, my bet is you believe Obstruction of Congress is about the Mueller Report don't you?
Well it is not and for Obstruction of Congress to happen you have to exhaust the courts so the Senate will toss this and you know they should!
As for Abuse of Power the question will be if Trump abuse is any different than Obama usage of drones on countries we were not at war with or his overuse of executive orders that attempted to limit the American Citizens rights...
Also you would have to review the Abuse of Power by George W. Bush and ask is Trump abuse worst than Bush?
My answer is no!
Did Trump make a mistake?
Yes, he did and he should have never mentioned Biden in the conversation and should have used backdoor tactics but should this be impeachable?
If Bush was not impeached and removed then Trump should not!
The main reason why those like you support this endeavor is because you know in 2020 your political party will lose, so Impeachment is your nuclear option but will it help your party or get them booted?
Bet is booted because Schiff made it clear why him, Pelosi and Nadler went for this is because they know they might lose and even if the Senate refuses to convict and remove Schiff has set the stage to protest the results of the election in 2020 by claiming it was rigged...
So let me be very clear it is your side tipping it hand and allow those like me to know what is coming.
Like in my thread about Obstruction of Congress the Democrats tell you their plan and all this Impeachment is about is to protest the 2020 election when Democrats lose.
Also I am voting for Bloomberg or Mayor Pete and if neither one is the Democrat Nominee I will vote Libertarian for President if they make the Texas Ballot and if not Green!
I will not be voting for Trump no matter how much you lie!
Trump will have every opportunity to present that "theory" of the events to the Senate.
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 100,835
- 36,049
- 2,250
Your claim that Russia fake news had little if any in changing the outcome of the vote is a discredited Fox talking point which you continue to repeat regularly. The Mueller report didn't say anything like that. If calling proven mis-truths a lie is too rough on you, what would you suggest I call them?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Your claim that Russia fake news had little if any in changing the outcome of the vote is a discredited Fox talking point
I agree. Russian memes on Facebook easily changed dozens of votes.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 34,670
- 27,627
- 2,915
It's not a theory, there IS no evidence!! The Democrat's BEST 'witness' said he had no direct evidence. If you ask me, the theory consists of the OPINIONS of Democrat-chosen 'witnesses'.......The articles show they have no evidence because they are so vague. This is not an impeachment it's the lynching of a duly elected U.S. President by one party because he represents the will of the people and not the Deep State D.C. fanny-sitting bureaucrats.
regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,151
- 245
After the Trump years as president, are the Republicans getting ready to declare there is no evidence that Trump was ever president? Great impeachment defense if they can carry it off.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 34,670
- 27,627
- 2,915
Stupid post of the year. ^^^^^^
bluzman61
Diamond Member
Yep, VERY stupid post. It makes NO sense and is NOT funny at all. Considering that it was posted by a liberal lunatic, this isn't TOO surprising...........
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Sure they do. They do all the time. It's why it's never prosecuted. People are expected to lie in court.
This is why everyone at the time thought the Clinton Impeachment was bullshit.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Sure they do. They do all the time. It's why it's never prosecuted. People are expected to lie in court.
Excellent! Just post your proof.
Ethos Logos Pathos
Senior Member
- Dec 16, 2019
- 875
- 112
- 55
- Banned
- #154
I agree. Some prosecutors especially, need to start discussing the Dem's illegal maneuvers ---including Biden & Obama during their Admin. I think Rudy going to Ukraine was smart. He is really going to show us proof of how conniving and lowdown the Biden family is, in Ukraine, and how Obama did knowingly allow it all to thrive. So of course they want President Trump impeached for focusing on Ukraine.
The Dem's fleeced FISA laws in order to get Mueller's investigation launched. The Dems illegally concocted, a Rule, which pretends that Congress can keep whistleblowers anonymous. Then the Dems lied about a phantom, abuse of power, when President Trump merely obeyed our nation's customized foreign policy with Ukraine; root out corruption!
That's why Pelosi and Schiff now don't want that Senate trial, to proceed, because they understand what's coming. They both know that all of the Dem's stealthy-deceit will get a spotlight shined upon it during the trial.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Why is Perjury So Rarely Prosecuted? | JSTOR Daily
Perjury, or lying under oath in court, is often called “the forgotten offense” because it is not only widespread, but rarely prosecuted, especially in America, where it’s been a crime since 1790. According to an article from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, prosecutions for perjury have traditionally been rare, with only 335 criminal cases total from 1966 to 1970.
The researchers explain why:
Most commentators attribute the absence of indictments and convictions for perjury to the highly technical nature of the offense. They point to problems in drafting indictments, in proving materiality of the alleged false testimony and in meeting the stringent evidentiary rules.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
What discredits the talking point about the trolling Russian "ads" is reading them.. I've got about gbyte of them loaded on my external drive and they are cheap and amateur attempts at best... Number of hits for each is lower than one of your threads... LOL...
And each one -- up to the most EXPENSIVE ones were a couple hundred rubles.. Go look up the value of that...
If you can influence an election with a total budget UNDER $100,000 -- the DNC NEEDS YOU NOW....
They have no statutory crimes at all. Trump will be fully exonerated proving that the House was wrong when they claimed they had charges worthy of removal. These folks are much more self-righteous than bright.
IMPEACHMENT: Sad!
The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they’re doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they’re running against.
The laughably named “Government Accountability Office” released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted “illegally”. Aside from the fact that that “finding” is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, “Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale.”
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #158
Excellent points.
The real foreign interference in the 2016 elect was Obama allowing millions of illegals to flood into this country and some of the commie states having almost non existent voter ID requirements. That resulted in Crooked Hillary getting 3-5 million votes from foreign nationals.
The Drunkard Crooked Hillary stole the meaningless popular vote!
Dems Must End This Sham Impeachment, Says … Former Clinton Adviser?
Fat Jerry and Bug-eyed Schiff
Count Mark Penn among those unimpressed by the Crazed House Democrats’ impeachment of Beloved Donald Trump. Penn, who worked as BJ Clinton’s pollster during the 1998-9 impeachment and later on Crooked Hillary Clinton’s Senate and 2008 presidential campaigns, blasts Bug-eyed Schiff as a political hitman for Crazed Democrats angry over Beloved Donald Trump’s win in 2016. Penn argues that it doesn’t come close to a reason to reverse an election and remove a president.
In an essay for The Hill, Penn argues that Crazed Democrats may pay a steep price for their abuse of the system, but that the institutional credibility of Congress will take even more damage:
There is definitely something about all this that the American public doesn’t like, that reasonable people can judge as wrong, but that is quite different than removing a president from office through a process designed to use impeachment as a political vehicle. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was not a truth-seeker — he is on tape soliciting naked pictures of Trump, and he repeatedly exaggerated evidence against Trump over the last three years. He was simply a weapon jamming through impeachment and ignoring fair procedure or legal process.
The last few days in the media have underscored this bias with the release of material from Lev Parnas, who — like Christopher Steele and his dossier before him, or like Michael Avenatti, now out on bail — is a questionable character with obviously wild claims for which he has no proof, including claims against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr, whom Parnas has never met. It was a political dirty trick to release his information and him on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, and this act alone would have gotten any real prosecutor’s case thrown out.
The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is, in my view, wholly without merit. Despite endless allegations of lawlessness, this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception. Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush money or suborning perjury, as was alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts. President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress, a resolution he promptly ignored.
The last few days in the media have underscored this bias with the release of material from Lev Parnas, who — like Christopher Steele and his dossier before him, or like Michael Avenatti, now out on bail — is a questionable character with obviously wild claims for which he has no proof, including claims against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr, whom Parnas has never met. It was a political dirty trick to release his information and him on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, and this act alone would have gotten any real prosecutor’s case thrown out.
The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is, in my view, wholly without merit. Despite endless allegations of lawlessness, this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception. Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush money or suborning perjury, as was alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts. President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress, a resolution he promptly ignored.
Both Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry Nadler defended the refusal of Obama and Holder to comply with subpoenas from the House at that time, and called the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt. That issue had a body count to go along with it, too, and clear violations of federal gun laws to boot.
Penn warns that we are about to see George Washington’s worst nightmare come true:
George Washington’s farewell address about the excesses of partisanship was never truer than today. As America’s only truly independent president, Washington predicted that the growth of factionalism would undermine the execution of our laws and that the “alternate domination” of one party over another would lead to efforts to “exact revenge” and “raise false alarms.”
Washington is particularly prescient about this moment in history. His farewell address warning is all too accurate:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state... Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
We’re at the debacle Washington predicts here:
The impeachment trial outcome is all but certain. Of more concern, however, should be the damage done to the legislative branch. This poisonous atmosphere has transformed Congress from a co-equal branch to either the wingman or the executioner of the president. With this partisan war as context, succeeding House majorities will feel freer to impeach any president of the opposing party on any pretext, especially by launching constant investigations that encroach on the executive’s co-equal status and automatically considering any objection to be obstructive. We will either have parliamentary systems with the executive under the thumb of the House, or presidencies entirely unencumbered by an independent legislature.
We need leadership on Capitol Hill that restores its own prerogatives while respecting the prerogatives of the executive. This would benefit both parties in the long run, and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any leaders emerging of that quality — nor a lot of demand from anyone else to produce them.
We need leadership on Capitol Hill that restores its own prerogatives while respecting the prerogatives of the executive. This would benefit both parties in the long run, and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any leaders emerging of that quality — nor a lot of demand from anyone else to produce them.
Penn insists that Democrats need to come to their senses and immediately withdraw their ridiculous articles of impeachment. Let the voters decide whether Trump’s behavior disqualifies him from another term, as setting this precedent would be far more damaging than anything alleged in the impeachment. This is nothing more than brute-force majoritarianism.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Guy, by that logic, Illegals would have had to have voted by a higher margin than citizens did.... Since we only have 11 million undocumented immigrants here and once you take out the kids, half of them would have to vote to hit those numbers.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Trump says he will not drop tariffs to get China to negotiating table- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
