Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

President Trump will be Impeached some say

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BrooklynGuy

Democrats Know Trump Won’t Be Removed. They’re Still Amped About Impeachment.

The first sound that greeted me, rounding the corner outside the hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building, was the eerie echo of Representative Adam Schiff’s voice emanating from the several dozen cellphones blasting live-stream footage of the testimony going on inside. With the public phase of the impeachment inquiry starting last week and continuing into this one, throngs of people—young and old, mostly Democrats—have waited outside the room every day to try to get a seat to see the hearings in person. Many of them had traveled very long distances to watch the California Democrat and other lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee question a number of witnesses. Why were they there? Almost all of them used the phrase “democracy in action.”

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-democrats-trump/602449/

 

Schiff: I have ‘nothing’ to testify about if called for impeachment trial

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/24/schiff-i-have-nothing-to-testify-about-if-called-for-impeachment-trial/

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Star

Not wishing to be pedantic but i have a question.

How do you know they were, 'mostly Demorcrats'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton

We all know he won't be removed. Us politics is so partisan that the Senate will never convict a president from their own party. 

In some ways, Trump wasn't wrong - he probably could shoot someone in the street and get away with it. 

At least until his term is up. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story. Looks like we should have something concrete by Christmas day.

House Democrats move closer to impeaching Trump

House Democrats say they are undeterred by the White House preventing first-hand witnesses from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee — and now are actively preparing for the next step in their eight-week-old investigation and the likely impeachment of President Donald Trump. Privately, Democrats are anticipating a busy December that will be filed with proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee, including public hearings and a markup, and a likely vote to impeach Trump on the House floor by Christmas Day, according to multiple Democratic sources, which would make him just the third President in history to be impeached.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/democrats-impeachment-plans/index.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Democrats Know Trump Won’t Be Removed. They’re Still Amped About Impeachment.

The first sound that greeted me, rounding the corner outside the hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building, was the eerie echo of Representative Adam Schiff’s voice emanating from the several dozen cellphones blasting live-stream footage of the testimony going on inside. With the public phase of the impeachment inquiry starting last week and continuing into this one, throngs of people—young and old, mostly Democrats—have waited outside the room every day to try to get a seat to see the hearings in person. Many of them had traveled very long distances to watch the California Democrat and other lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee question a number of witnesses. Why were they there? Almost all of them used the phrase “democracy in action.”

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-democrats-trump/602449/

 

Schiff: I have ‘nothing’ to testify about if called for impeachment trial

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/24/schiff-i-have-nothing-to-testify-about-if-called-for-impeachment-trial/

 

If called and he refuses to answer questions by taking his 5th amendment protection, he will be seen as a liar by most.  If he answers honestly he will risk charges and if he lies he will risk being proven a perjurer.  He has made a few declarations that most believe were lies.  Chief of these is his lie that he does not know who the *whistlelower* is and has not spoken with him.  He needs to be sworn and deposed for the record.

Edited by Kismit
Name removed so that UM does not break any laws
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, BrooklynGuy said:

More on the story. Looks like we should have something concrete by Christmas day.

House Democrats move closer to impeaching Trump

House Democrats say they are undeterred by the White House preventing first-hand witnesses from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee — and now are actively preparing for the next step in their eight-week-old investigation and the likely impeachment of President Donald Trump. Privately, Democrats are anticipating a busy December that will be filed with proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee, including public hearings and a markup, and a likely vote to impeach Trump on the House floor by Christmas Day, according to multiple Democratic sources, which would make him just the third President in history to be impeached.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/democrats-impeachment-plans/index.html

PERFECT!  It appears these scum cannot be more blind to the damage they are doing themselves.  Let the people remember who interrupted their Holidays with this idiocy. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story

Trump retweets RNC ad that uses AOC, Dems’ impeach comments 

President Trump on Sunday retweeted a Republican National Committee ad that uses the words of Democrats — including progressive lightning rod Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez — talking about impeachment against them. The freshman lawmaker, who has supported ousting Trump even before the recent rounds of public hearings as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry, leads the list of prominent Democrats on the 31-second ad. “This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year,” Ocasio-Cortez says in the video.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/24/trump-retweets-rnc-ad-that-uses-aoc-dems-impeach-comments-against-them/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, BrooklynGuy said:

More on the story

Trump retweets RNC ad that uses AOC, Dems’ impeach comments 

President Trump on Sunday retweeted a Republican National Committee ad that uses the words of Democrats — including progressive lightning rod Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez — talking about impeachment against them. The freshman lawmaker, who has supported ousting Trump even before the recent rounds of public hearings as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry, leads the list of prominent Democrats on the 31-second ad. “This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year,” Ocasio-Cortez says in the video.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/24/trump-retweets-rnc-ad-that-uses-aoc-dems-impeach-comments-against-them/

I suspect this ad is just the first of many to come.  The Left has given mountains of such hatred, openly and relentlessly.  People are already sick of it and now we hear that the act of Impeachment may reach its zenith around Christmas?  They've gone true nutter and Schiff is the lead pistachio :w00t:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
1 hour ago, and then said:

I suspect this ad is just the first of many to come.  The Left has given mountains of such hatred, openly and relentlessly.  People are already sick of it and now we hear that the act of Impeachment may reach its zenith around Christmas?  They've gone true nutter and Schiff is the lead pistachio :w00t:

 

wj0u8m558bf31.jpg

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
6 hours ago, and then said:

If called and he refuses to answer questions by taking his 5th amendment protection, he will be seen as a liar by most.  If he answers honestly he will risk charges and if he lies he will risk being proven a perjurer.  He has made a few declarations that most believe were lies.  Chief of these is his lie that he does not know who the *whistlelower* is and has not spoken with him.  He needs to be sworn and deposed for the record.

Ridiculous.  Kismet, would you care to cite the "law" you'd be breaking if his name is given?  I can tell you which - THERE IS NONE.  The ICIG is not allowed to give a whistleblowers name.  NO ONE else is covered by that law.  NO ONE.  It makes anyone bowing to this nonsense look ridiculous.  

ETA - my apologies for the rebuttal language.  I just get a little wound up when ridiculous assumptions are made without any backing.  No disrespect meant.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

As you peruse this information you will see multiple references to this statute being for the "protection from reprisal" of a government whistleblower.  You might ponder just how said whistleblower COULD face reprisal if their name is kept hidden by statute.  I've worked inside the Federal government and everyone in such employment understands that they can file such grievances but if they do, their name will be out there and it will be very difficult to prove that the negative treatment they receive will be down to "reprisal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
54 minutes ago, and then said:

ETA - my apologies for the rebuttal language.  I just get a little wound up when ridiculous assumptions are made without any backing.  No disrespect meant.

Like when you claimed a couple hours ago that Obama used executive privilege hundreds of times and refused to cite a source?  I feel ya.

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
7 hours ago, and then said:

If called and he refuses to answer questions by taking his 5th amendment protection, he will be seen as a liar by most.  If he answers honestly he will risk charges and if he lies he will risk being proven a perjurer.  He has made a few declarations that most believe were lies.  Chief of these is his lie that he does not know who the *whistlelower* is and has not spoken with him.  He needs to be sworn and deposed for the record.

He really should just ignore the subpoena. They have been shown to mean absolutely nothing anymore. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
1 minute ago, Robotic Jew said:

He really should just ignore the subpoena. They have been shown to mean absolutely nothing anymore. 

No kidding. Trump may think he's above the law, but his toadies aren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

More on the story

Democrats want impeachment hearings to change opinions on Donald Trump

By 8am on November 13th, the line to get into the Ways and Means Committee room already stretched all the way down the long hallway, though the hearing was not scheduled to begin until ten. Cameras bristled at the building’s entrance. Congressional interns, journalists and political junkies jostled for position as if they were on a crowded train carriage, and police officers trying to keep a path open grew increasingly frustrated.

Read more: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/11/14/democrats-want-impeachment-hearings-to-change-opinions-on-donald-trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 hours ago, and then said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

As you peruse this information you will see multiple references to this statute being for the "protection from reprisal" of a government whistleblower.  You might ponder just how said whistleblower COULD face reprisal if their name is kept hidden by statute.  I've worked inside the Federal government and everyone in such employment understands that they can file such grievances but if they do, their name will be out there and it will be very difficult to prove that the negative treatment they receive will be down to "reprisal"

God you're a gross human being. There is no reason to out the whistleblowers name other than for reprisal. You are lying if you say otherwise. You are being lied to if you believe otherwise. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
16 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Democrats Know Trump Won’t Be Removed. They’re Still Amped About Impeachment.

The first sound that greeted me, rounding the corner outside the hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building, was the eerie echo of Representative Adam Schiff’s voice emanating from the several dozen cellphones blasting live-stream footage of the testimony going on inside. With the public phase of the impeachment inquiry starting last week and continuing into this one, throngs of people—young and old, mostly Democrats—have waited outside the room every day to try to get a seat to see the hearings in person. Many of them had traveled very long distances to watch the California Democrat and other lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee question a number of witnesses. Why were they there? Almost all of them used the phrase “democracy in action.”

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-democrats-trump/602449/

 

Schiff: I have ‘nothing’ to testify about if called for impeachment trial

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/24/schiff-i-have-nothing-to-testify-about-if-called-for-impeachment-trial/

 

You must work in food service, because I have not seen anyone stir the pot more than you do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

Schiff is a TRUE American Hero!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

God you're a gross human being. There is no reason to out the whistleblowers name other than for reprisal. You are lying if you say otherwise. You are being lied to if you believe otherwise. 

Having the whistle blowers name out there can show motive. Which I suspect there is plenty of, none of which has to do with impeachable offenses. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

God you're a gross human being. There is no reason to out the whistleblowers name other than for reprisal. You are lying if you say otherwise. You are being lied to if you believe otherwise. 

Indeed @Farmer77. I mean, everyone who counts (e.g. liberals and democrats) already KNOW that President Trump is guilty of Grand Theft. 

(He stole the election off the Blessed Hilary). 

Why are we messing around with investigations and trials ? Just get some rope !

Viva democracy. Viva Justice. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
7 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Having the whistle blowers name out there can show motive. Which I suspect there is plenty of, none of which has to do with impeachable offenses. 

Why does the whistleblower's motive matter? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Just now, Robotic Jew said:

Why does the whistleblower's motive matter? 

In a normal criminal trial, the motivation (if any) of a witness would be a very major factor. If a witness has a strong animus towards the accused, then the court may well infer that the testimony of that witness is suspect, and could be biased. 

Of course, that is unlikely in this case. It's not as though the whistleblower was an ex-CIA agent with a strong hatred of the President or anything. 

Oh wait.. he WAS. :O 

He also - if I recall correctly - only had hearsay evidence, which would be good grounds for not asking him to testify in any case. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
9 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Having the whistle blowers name out there can show motive.

it doesn't matter who he is or his past or his party, the Republicans and Trump will label him / her - a never Trumper, a non patriot, disaffected public servant..

None of which matters as the investigation that we have seen in public has shown quite clearly what has happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In a normal criminal trial, the motivation (if any) of a witness would be a very major factor.

except of course that the public hearings didn't rely at all on whistle blower evidence. Thus his motives are not relevant.

at best you are arguing that this guy exposed us for his own reasons and look what you lot found out because of it.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

except of course that the public hearings didn't rely at all on whistle blower evidence. Thus his motives are not relevant.

at best you are arguing that this guy exposed us for his own reasons. which again won't matter if the exposure did not uncover what it did.

Fair point. In that case, it is reasonable that he NOT be called to testify. He has nothing to add, and his clear bias would be exposed by the Republicans under cross-examination, and might cast doubt in the minds of the watching American Public as to the trustworthyness of the entire hunt trial. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.