Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
McConnell says he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevil" data-source="post: 74676761" data-attributes="member: 277368"><p>That's fine. Impeachment isn't a legal process.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Witnesses are important to determine this matter. Trump didn't write a book or an executive order. He passed on his desires for Ukraine policy by talking to people.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a reasonable question. When a case is brought before a judge, the judge can throw the case out, rather than have a trial if they consider the case to be not relevant. But that would mean throwing out the trial. Which is vastly different to having a trial but throwing out witnesses and evidence.</p><p></p><p>What is meant by "impeachable offence"?</p><p>We are considering "impeachment and removal from office" here, not just impeachment. Trump has already been impeached.</p><p>As with any job, why would you consider removing a person from their job?</p><p>This is different to simply being the person's boss. Where you may have all sorts of reasons to want to remove them. But here we are talking about being "forced" to remove them.</p><p>Why "forced"? Because you cannot trust them to do the job that they are tasked with.</p><p></p><p>If a person is in a position of responsibility, then you must trust that this person is making choices that benefit the company/country first and foremost. This person, with responsibilities may have the power to approve spending, or to select products or vendors for the purpose of adding value to the company/country.</p><p>If this person is instead using their power and trusted authority over company/country funds to benefit themselves either to the detriment of the company/country or for no benefit at all for the company/country, then this person cannot be trusted to do their job.</p><p></p><p>If this person cannot be trusted to do their job, then they need to be removed.</p><p></p><p>If it is true that Trump put a smackdown on Ukraine (strategic ally) who were under extreme duress from Russia (common enemy), by withholding approved aid (USA assets) until they made a public announcement of an investigation into Trump's political rival leading up to the next USA presidential election. This would count as the person abusing their power, misusing country assets, abusing strategic allies, helping common enemies and corrupting the democratic process of elections for the purpose of personal gain. Is this the type of person you want continuing to have this power, continuing to have trusted authority over USA assets?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevil, post: 74676761, member: 277368"] That's fine. Impeachment isn't a legal process. Witnesses are important to determine this matter. Trump didn't write a book or an executive order. He passed on his desires for Ukraine policy by talking to people. This is a reasonable question. When a case is brought before a judge, the judge can throw the case out, rather than have a trial if they consider the case to be not relevant. But that would mean throwing out the trial. Which is vastly different to having a trial but throwing out witnesses and evidence. What is meant by "impeachable offence"? We are considering "impeachment and removal from office" here, not just impeachment. Trump has already been impeached. As with any job, why would you consider removing a person from their job? This is different to simply being the person's boss. Where you may have all sorts of reasons to want to remove them. But here we are talking about being "forced" to remove them. Why "forced"? Because you cannot trust them to do the job that they are tasked with. If a person is in a position of responsibility, then you must trust that this person is making choices that benefit the company/country first and foremost. This person, with responsibilities may have the power to approve spending, or to select products or vendors for the purpose of adding value to the company/country. If this person is instead using their power and trusted authority over company/country funds to benefit themselves either to the detriment of the company/country or for no benefit at all for the company/country, then this person cannot be trusted to do their job. If this person cannot be trusted to do their job, then they need to be removed. If it is true that Trump put a smackdown on Ukraine (strategic ally) who were under extreme duress from Russia (common enemy), by withholding approved aid (USA assets) until they made a public announcement of an investigation into Trump's political rival leading up to the next USA presidential election. This would count as the person abusing their power, misusing country assets, abusing strategic allies, helping common enemies and corrupting the democratic process of elections for the purpose of personal gain. Is this the type of person you want continuing to have this power, continuing to have trusted authority over USA assets? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
McConnell says he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses
Top
Bottom