Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
I'm glad he flip-flopped on that decision. I wonder if he would do that if he were to become president.

I wonder if you hold the same standard for Trump on the multiple times he claimed that he would testify for Mueller:



I'm joking, I don't wonder at all if you hold the same standard for Trump.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,763
17,062
✟1,388,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you just don't do it and hope for the best?

People complain about this President, and just think by some miracle he will be cooperative? Come on now. Even you know that won't happen.

The POTUS took an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by the Constitution.

I would force the subject, and if it was after the election? Fine, and move forward. Once the Supreme court says he has to? He can't stonewall anymore to the extent that people seem to think he can.

....and in the meantime, he will continue to use all of his executive power to benefit himself - politically - right up until election day. Trump will not alter his behavior.

It's rather ignorant to think he will just hand over what they want because they are screaming about it. In the meantime calling things a sham after claiming they have indisputable facts and proof? If that was indeed true? They wouldn't need witnesses and documents. Problem is I don't think they believe their own statements.

If the impeachment inquiry were a grand jury, there's been more than enough evidence presented to proceed with a trial. Obviously, producing the requested emails, documents and witnesses would make the case even stronger for a Senate trial.

I think the Biden thing will go no where personally. Guilty or Not it won't. So, they can use their indisputable facts and prove their case with the Ukraine part. The executive privilege claim on the other article? I don't see that going anywhere. Every President since George Washington has used it. You use the courts if you feel there is an exception they won't honor - which has been done successfully before. The fact they didn't want to because of an election? That won't fly.

Are you aware of any President who has rejected all impeachment inquiry requests for documents and/or witnesses? I believe it's unprecedented and a flat rejection of the House's authority under the Constitution to hold a President accountable through the impeachment process. While some President's have invoked executive privilege, they have done so in a more targeted way while recognizing the need to cooperate generally.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,096.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's what they should have done in the first place. Wait for the election, and see if he is removed.

I'm not convinced this is a great plan, given all the evidence that he's willing to abuse the power of the presidency to get foreign government to interfere in the election on his behalf.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Then Mulvaney and Bolton should have testified before the House.

They can testify before the Senate, just as Biden and the whistleblower can--if only Pelosi would stop indicating her sudden lack of confidence in the process by putting a stop to it all.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The other side is the side with the guns, already promised to "Hunt them (Democrats) down" if Trump is removed.

You mean like the guy who did the latest church shooting; the guy who kept wanting money from the church and then opened fire when he didn't get it? Our side may be known for having the guns, but it's the other side that actually uses those guns when they don't get what they want.
 
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
88
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
They can testify before the Senate, just as Biden and the whistleblower can--if only Pelosi would stop indicating her sudden lack of confidence in the process by putting a stop to it all.
You sound confused, honestly. I am quite fine if Trump and Pelosi have Mulvaney and Bolton and Biden testify. Pelosi has not prevented Biden from testifying if he wants to.
 
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
88
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You mean like the guy who did the latest church shooting; the guy who kept wanting money from the church and then opened fire when he didn't get it? Our side may be known for having the guns, but it's the other side that actually uses those guns when they don't get what they want.
What does that deranged man have to do with this discussion, Aldebaran?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You sound confused, honestly. I am quite fine if Trump and Pelosi have Mulvaney and Bolton and Biden testify. Pelosi has not prevented Biden from testifying if he wants to.

Nor did I say she has. Biden himself said he wouldn't, and then flip-flopped on that decision. But it won't mean much if Pelosi never lets the process go forward anyway, which would be a flip-flop on her part since she claimed that impeachment was so important that it simply couldn't wait for the election to take place so the voters could decide for themselves.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What does that deranged man have to do with this discussion, Aldebaran?

I was answering post #96 where someone had implied that the conservative Republican side is the side with the guns and hunts people down.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,096.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They can testify before the Senate, just as Biden and the whistleblower can
Wait, I thought the spin was that non-first hand accounts were useless. So why would Biden and the whistleblower be needed? Is hearsay testimony now valid?

It is so hard to keep up with these changing stories.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The GOP far right are normally the ones who talk about guns, 2dA, and starting a CW, Aldebaran.

And yet it's the most hateful people on the far left that actually commit crimes to express their frustration when a president they don't like is elected, and spread hate when that doesn't work, which then leads to their followers walking into churches and killing people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Wait, I thought the spin was that non-first hand accounts were useless. So why would Biden and the whistleblower be needed? Is hearsay testimony now valid?

It is so hard to keep up with these changing stories.

It was an investigation into Biden that started this whole thing. Perhaps it's reasonable for a questioning of him be the end to it as well.
 
Upvote 0

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,436
4,859
38
Midwest
✟261,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
It was an investigation into Biden that started this whole thing. Perhaps it's reasonable for a questioning of him be the end to it as well.

Why can you not understand that Biden is not what this trial is about? You want to investigate Biden, go ahead start one up and burn him at the stake for all I care. I personally don’t want him in the DNC primary. But this trial is about Trump pressuring a foreign country to dig up dirt on his own personal political rival using my tax paying dollars and obstructing Congress from investigating it. Biden personally has zero to do with either action.

If I were the Democrats I would cut a deal, Biden will testify if Trump will. At least Trump is first hand account to this, Biden doesn’t even have hearsay to any of this and I know how Republicans have said we should not listen to any hearsay testimony. In that regard Biden is absolutely worthless to this trial.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Why can you not understand that Biden is not what this trial is about? You want to investigate Biden, go ahead start one up and burn him at the stake for all I care. I personally don’t want him in the DNC primary. But this trial is about Trump pressuring a foreign country to dig up dirt on his own personal political rival using my tax paying dollars and obstructing Congress from investigating it. Biden personally has zero to do with either action.

If it has nothing to do with Biden, then why do you use the phrase, "dig up dirt on his own personal political rival"? Who is that "political rival" (who also wants to be our next president)?

If I were the Democrats I would cut a deal, Biden will testify if Trump will. At least Trump is first hand account to this, Biden doesn’t even have hearsay to any of this and I know how Republicans have said we should not listen to any hearsay testimony.

You mean you want a quid pro quo?
 
Upvote 0

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,436
4,859
38
Midwest
✟261,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
If it has nothing to do with Biden, then why do you use the phrase, "dig up dirt on his own personal political rival"? Who is that "political rival" (who also wants to be our next president)?

Did Jodie Foster have to testify at John Hinkley’s trial? She was the reason he shot Reagan so she should have testified on what she knew.

You mean you want a quid pro quo?

Am I using tax dollars for personal advantage and violating an international treaty in making this deal?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Did Jodie Foster have to testify at John Hinkley’s trial? She was the reason he shot Reagan so she should have testified on what she knew.

Hinkley never said Jodie Foster had done anything that needed to be investigated. She also didn't have a son involved who was making millions of dollars for doing basically nothing as a favor for corruption in the country where the tax dollars you keep talking about were going.

Am I using tax dollars for personal advantage and violating an international treaty in making this deal?

I don't know you well enough to say either way.
 
Upvote 0