Will you watch the impeachment hearings on television?

Do you plan to watch the hearings, either live or taped?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 48.9%
  • No

    Votes: 23 51.1%

  • Total voters
    45

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
There has been no accusation to defend. There has been no evidence presented to compel a person to testify about.......
There doesn't need to be. The House has the constitutional authority to subpoena witnesses to testify about any Executive Branch activities at any time whether there has been an allegation of wrongdoing or not.

Look... you even say it:



You cannot impeach a sitting President to find a formal accusation.

How do Make that any clearer?
The Impeachment is the formal accusation. We're still a long way from it, assuming it ever happens at all.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
24,047
26,175
LA
✟564,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It is not their personal account. It is hearsay of what was heard was told to someone. Or by someone. A personal account is first hand.
It is their account of what they know. If all they know is what others have told them then that is by definition, their account of what they know. That’s what they’re there to testify. Did you listen to it at all or are you only going by the right wing spin?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
49
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
This isn’t the impeachment proceeding. It’s only an inquiry at this point.

I understand that, but nothing has been presented to warrant an impeachment inquiry. They are looking for an impeachable offense.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
24,047
26,175
LA
✟564,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I understand that, but nothing has been presented to warrant an impeachment inquiry.
Well you can take that up the with the House of Representatives. I don’t claim to know their job better than they do but it seems like they have the legal and constitutional authority to go forward with this or, it would have been stopped by now.

They are looking for an impeachable offense.
That’s correct. They are looking to determine whether actions taken by the president are impeachable. That’s their job.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
24,047
26,175
LA
✟564,457.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No offense has been presented to inquire. Only hearsay, rumor, suspicion, implied intent have been presented. This inquiry is intended to find an offense.
The president put pressure on Ukraine for his own personal benefit in domestic politics. He set up a back alley connection to another head of state with his personal lawyer to avoid public record of this deal. These facts aren’t even disputed by the Republicans or the White House. That is an abuse of power. That is an impeachable offense.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟118,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Trump supporters are totally ignoring the fact that neither person who testified under oath yesterday was only telling representatives second-hand knowledge. If they had no first-hand knowledge, they would not be subponaed in the first place. It is also clear that they talked about witnessing events.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟118,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I mean, aren't you supposed to be able to prove and testify to what actualy happened in order to accuse someone?

The burden of proof that there are no first-hand witnesses is on you.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟118,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Who has presented this real evidence? Again, hearsay, rumor, suspicion, implied intent, are not evidence of, or for, anything. Speculation is not evidence.

Who has presented real evidence that George Kent and Bill Taylor committed perjury when they testified? They stated FIRST HAND information in their opening statements UNDER OATH.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: whatbogsends
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

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The burden of proof that there are no first-hand witnesses is on you.

You're not going to turn these people. You're not going to sell these GOP senators of any wrongdoing.

Bill Clinton was impeached for consensual sexual acts. By the GOP. By the religious right. Donald Trump committed FORCIBLE acts, and they aren't even holding impeachment proceedings for THAT...because Trump did things worse still.

Yet people cannot see even that. He has been "accused of nothing". You could ring a cowbell in front of their face and they wouldn't hear it.

There is no convincing or persuading people like that. You can only overpower them.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
49
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Look. In my opinion this is a failed attempted coup. It has no teeth, and you a welcome to believe what you will. However Trump will remain President, and this had achieved nothing except further solidifying and expand Trump's base. And when the perp walks and indictments come, that too will be called a partisan ploy by Trump. Even tho I have been mocked for years discussing them.

I honestly wish you the best, to you and your families. I am not going to continue trying to discuss a topic with individuals that are just as dug in as I am. It is an impasse. None of you are bad people. We just do not agree. You will either witness what I have stated to be true, or I will be proven wrong. That is where we are in this current conversation. All of us have said our peace and decided where we will stand.

I honestly respect all of you, and do not wish to continue such an emotionally charged debate. You know where I stand. God bless you. God's will be done.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,849.00
Faith
Atheist
It is not their personal account. It is hearsay of what was heard was told to someone. Or by someone. A personal account is first hand.

The accounts yesterday were their first hand accounts. You grossly misrepresent what was said in yesterday's hearings.
 
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

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,795
9,519
the Great Basin
✟335,068.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No offense has been presented to inquire. Only hearsay, rumor, suspicion, implied intent have been presented. This inquiry is intended to find an offense.

Your logic doesn't work here, at all. By your logic, if I come home and find my front door broken into, and several items missing from my house, I can't call the police to report a burglary as I have no first hand knowledge that a burglary occurred. The most I know is that my door was broken and things are missing, and, per your logic, the Police would be wrong to investigate based on my suppositions. In fact, the thief could call to taunt me and I still would have no recourse, per you, as telling the police that would merely be hearsay and second hand information.

I'm sorry, Trump is being accused of abuse of office, and possible violations of federal law. This investigation is proceeding it is supposed to; talking to various witnesses to see what each knows and to see what can be confirmed.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
49
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Your logic doesn't work here, at all. By your logic, if I come home and find my front door broken into, and several items missing from my house, I can't call the police to report a burglary as I have no first hand knowledge that a burglary occurred. The most I know is that my door was broken and things are missing, and, per your logic, the Police would be wrong to investigate based on my suppositions. In fact, the thief could call to taunt me and I still would have no recourse, per you, as telling the police that would merely be hearsay and second hand information.

I'm sorry, Trump is being accused of abuse of office, and possible violations of federal law. This investigation is proceeding it is supposed to; talking to various witnesses to see what each knows and to see what can be confirmed.

It no longer matters politically speaking. It's over. I am convinced this has firmly handed Trump 2020 without any hope for a Democratic victory. The Democrats have managed to get the Republicans, of all people, into lock step around the president, and has turned Trump into a martyr for the people; by persecuting the people themselves it allowed them to identify with Trump. That is how this is being perceived. The republicans on stage running in elections saturday claimed that they were a member of the 'basket of deplorables' and would stand with the people as Trump has stood with them. Trump has been made into a symbol of the falsely accused by this impeachment inquiry. He is more popular then I have ever seen.

I do not think anyone on this side of the conversation believes anything that is being said about Trump.

upload_2019-11-14_21-30-41.png
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟118,327.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I do not think anyone on this side of the conversation believes anything that is being said about Trump.

Everyone believes some things that are being said about Trump. People who don't believe the truth about him are ignorant, apparently by choice.
 
Upvote 0

LostMarbels

All-Lives-Matter
Jun 18, 2011
11,954
3,864
49
Orlando Fl
✟173,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Everyone believes some things that are being said about Trump. People who don't believe the truth about him are ignorant, apparently by choice.

This is nothing new.... People plug their ears and will not listen... tell me again about ignorance

People knew about Ukraine and HRC in 2017. This is the corruption Trump is looking for. That is the favor he asked. Biden is a tit for tat. As I have stated before. Stop following them red dots.

You wonder why I do not believe a word of what is being said about these dog and pony show? Because I knew, and posted to this forum that Grassley was looking into the Ukraine concerning election fraud and other HRC DNC corruption. I've known for what? Almost 3 years? Forgive me if current events don't come across as shocking. I kinda had some warning.

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Rosenstein,

According to news reports, during the 2016 presidential election, “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump” and did so by “disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter…”[1] Ukrainian officials also reportedly “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”[2] At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative “who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee” and reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.[3] Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhiy Leschenko, saying that Trump’s candidacy caused “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.”[4]

Reporting indicates that the Democratic National Committee encouraged Chalupa to interface with Ukrainian embassy staff to “arrange an interview in which Poroshenko [the president of Ukraine] might discuss Manafort’s ties to Yanukovych.”[5] Chalupa also met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., and Oksana Shulyar, a top aid to the Ukrainian ambassador in March 2016 and shared her alleged concerns about Manafort. Reports state that the purpose of their initial meeting was to “organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine.” However, another Ukrainian embassy official, Andrii Telizhenko, told Politico that Shulyar instructed him to assist Chalupa with research to connect Trump, Manafort, and the Russians. He reportedly said, “[t]hey were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa” and that “Oksana [Shulyar] was keeping it all quiet…the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.[6]

Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials. Indeed, Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar, “f we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump’s involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September.”[7] Later, Chalupa did reportedly meet with staff in the office of Democratic representative Marcy Kaptur to discuss a congressional investigation. Such a public investigation would not only benefit the Hillary Clinton campaign, but it would benefit the Ukrainian government, which, at the time, was working against the Trump campaign. When Politico attempted to ask Rep. Kaptur’s office about the meeting, the office called it a “touchy subject.”

Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian government, Chalupa’s actions implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). As you know, the Committee is planning a hearing on FARA enforcement. Given the public reporting of these activities in support of a foreign government, it is imperative that the Justice Department explain why she has not been required to register under FARA.

FARA requires individuals to register with the Justice Department if they act, even through an intermediary, “as an agent, representative, employee, or servant” or “in any other capacity” at the behest of a foreign principal, including a foreign political party, for purposes of engagement with a United States official.[8] The registration applies to anyone who attempts to influence a U.S. government official on behalf of a foreign principal in an effort to “formulat[e], adopt[], or chang[e] the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.”[9] As such, the focus of FARA is to require registration for individuals engaged in political or quasi-political activity on behalf of a foreign government. Likewise, an individual whose activities are subject to registration under FARA and who sends informational material “for or in the interest of [a] foreign principal” with the intent or belief that such material will be circulated among at least two persons must transmit the material to the Attorney General no later than 48 hours after actual transmission.[10] Notably, an ongoing failure to register is an ongoing offense.[11]

According to documents provided to the Committee, the Justice Department required the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC to register under FARA for working on behalf of the Ukrainian government.[12] Their registration was required even though the client, the European Centre for the Modern Ukraine (ECFMU), wrote a letter saying it was not directly or indirectly controlled by the Ukrainian government. That did not matter to the Justice Department because their lobbying activity was not to “benefit commercial interests” of the ECFMU but instead to promote the “political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.” The Justice Department made clear that an individual acting in the political or public interests of a foreign government must register under FARA. As such, because Podesta and Mercury were effectively working on behalf of Ukrainian government interests, they were required to register.

Unlike that situation where the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC worked for the middleman (EFCMU) and not the Ukrainian government, here Chalupa reportedly worked directly with Ukrainian government officials to benefit Ukraine, lobbying Congress on behalf of Ukraine, and worked to undermine the Trump campaign on behalf of Ukraine and the Clinton campaign. Accordingly, these facts appear to be exactly the type of activity Congress intended to reach with FARA. Please answer the following:

  1. What actions has the Justice Department taken to enforce FARA’s requirements regarding Chalupa given the public reporting of her actions on behalf of the Ukrainian government?

  1. Why has the Justice Department not required her to register under FARA?

  1. Has the Justice Department sent a letter of inquiry to Chalupa? If so, please provide a copy. If not, why not?

  1. Under 28 C.F.R. § 5.2, any present or prospective agent of a foreign entity may request an advisory opinion from the Justice Department regarding the need to register. Has Chalupa ever requested one in relation to her work on behalf of the Ukrainian government? If so, please provide a copy of the request and opinion.

  1. Please differentiate the facts that required the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC to register with Chalupa’s.

  1. Are you investigating the Ukrainian government’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of the Clinton campaign? If not, why not?

  1. Are you investigating links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee? If not, why not?
I anticipate that your written response and the responsive documents will be unclassified.

Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. The Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information. The Committee is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request. Please respond no later than August 3, 2017. If you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
 
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

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
21,154
17,659
✟1,453,563.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can I stop going in circles now? Or do you keep responding to me just to have entertainment?

I need you to do us a favor - stop going in circles ^_^
 
Upvote 0